You are here: / Negligence

FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured by a picture frame which fell on her inside an office leased by defendant.  Plaintiff alleged liability under common-law negligence and res ipsa loqutur. The Second Department determined defendant’s summary judgment was properly denied because defendant did not affirmatively demonstrate (1) a lack of exclusive control over the picture frame, (2) the picture frame did not constitute a dangerous condition, and (3) defendant did not create a dangerous condition. [Again, failure of the defense to affirmatively address every alleged theory of liability requires denial of summary judgment.]. Assil v Camba, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00914, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO ADDRESS CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED)

,

SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendant general contractor (Metro) was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when the knot on a rope he was tied to while pushing snow off a roof gave way and he fell three stories. The decision illustrates the subtle difference between the amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 240(1) and the greater amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence:

 

The failure of an owner or an agent of the owner “to furnish or erect suitable devices to protect workers when work is being performed” results in absolute liability against that owner or the owner’s agent under the statute … , and the duty to provide a suitable safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), moreover, is nondelegable … . A general contractor is not considered a statutory agent of the property owner for Labor Law § 240(1) liability purposes, unless that contractor had the authority to supervise and control significant aspects of the construction project, such as safety, at the time of the accident … . …

… Metro was [demonstrated to be] a statutory agent of the property owner on the construction project through the submission of Metro’s admission that it was hired by the property owners as the general contractor on the project, and evidence that Metro undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors… . …

Where, as here, “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … . Sanchez v Metro Bldrs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00957, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner was not entitled to summary judgment in this common-law negligence and Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) action. Plaintiff was injured working on defendant’s building. Defendant, in his motion papers, did not affirmatively address all the possible theories of recovery available to the plaintiff. Therefore summary judgment should not have been granted. [Another example of the need for a defendant bringing a summary judgment motion to affirmative address every theory raised in the complaint.]:

 

Liability on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action “generally falls into two broad categories: instances involving the manner in which the work is performed, and instances in which workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site” … . Where, as alleged here, the plaintiff’s accident arose from an allegedly dangerous premises condition, a property owner may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 when the owner has control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition causing an injury, or failed to remedy the dangerous or defective condition while having actual or constructive notice of it …. Thus, where a plaintiff’s injury arose from a dangerous condition at a work site, a property owner moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging common-law negligence has “the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. … Further, the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact as to whether he had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . …

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in directing the dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action because, while the defendant generally sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against him, he did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact in connection with these causes of action… . Korostynskyy v 416 Kings Highway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00939, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SETTLING THE ACTION WITH ONE PLAINTIFF AND PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITH THE OTHER PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have rejected a stipulation which settled the personal injury action with respect to one of the plaintiffs and allowed the matter to proceed to trial with respect to another plaintiff. The Second Department explained the deference which should be accorded a negotiated stipulation:

 

” [P]arties to a civil dispute are free to chart their own litigation course and, in so doing, they may stipulate away statutory, and even constitutional rights'” … . The subject stipulation of settlement was made after negotiations among counsel for the respective parties, and the litigants agreed to its terms. In consenting to the stipulation, these parties fashioned the basis upon which their particular controversy would be resolved by providing for the termination of the action with respect to [one plaintiff] and the continuation of the action with respect [the other]… . Astudillo v MV Transp., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00915, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/STIPULATION (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)/NEGLIGENCE (NEGOTIATED STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT)

,

APPLICATION FOR LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS; PURPOSE OF NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim alleging injury in a slip and fall accident caused by a badly broken sidewalk in front of property owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Petitioner’s attorney had assumed the city, not the NYCHA, owned the abutting property. After noting that an error in identifying the correct public corporation was not a reasonable excuse, and further noting the NYCHA did not have notice of the accident by other means, the First Department explained the purpose of the notice requirement and why late notice was appropriate in this case:

 

After petitioner’s counsel realized that respondent NYCHA, not the City of New York, owned the property abutting the badly broken sidewalk where petitioner’s accident occurred, petitioner sought an extension of time to file a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). That statute confers upon the court “the discretion to determine whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim within certain parameters” … . The factors to be considered by the court include: whether the failure to identify the proper party was an “excusable error,” whether the public corporation received “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” within 90 days of the accident or “a reasonable time thereafter,” and whether the delay “substantially prejudiced” the public corporation’s ability to defend the claim on the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). The notice of claim requirement “is not intended to operate as a device to frustrate the rights of individuals with legitimate claims,” but to protect the public corporation from “unfounded claims” and ensure that it has an adequate opportunity “to explore the merits of the claim while information is still readily available” … .

While the error of petitioner’s counsel concerning the identity of the responsible public corporation does not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving notice … , “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application” … . Although NYCHA did not receive actual notice of the accident until the petition was served, it did not contest petitioner’s assertion that the condition of the badly broken sidewalk remains unchanged since the time of the accident and that there were no witnesses to the accident, so that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the eight-month delay in providing notice (… General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). NYCHA’s conclusory claim that the “passage of time may affect the availability or memories of potential witnesses is insufficient to establish prejudice” … . In light of the policies underlying General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), which is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes … . Matter of Richardson v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00909, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LATE NOTICE ALLOWE DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (LATE NOTICE ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE EXCUSE AND NOTICE BY OTHER MEANS)

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a personal injury (car accident) action was properly granted. The majority concluded the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the injury was caused by the accident. Defendants’ experts opined the injury was caused by a pre-existing degenerative condition. The dissent felt that plaintiff’s expert raised a question of fact about causation because tearing of the relevant tissue was detected, a condition not mentioned by the defendants’ experts:

 

The dissent, taking the position that an issue of fact exists as to whether the accident caused plaintiff’s shoulder injury, does not deal with the aforementioned opinions of Dr. Lang and Dr. Lyons in plaintiff’s own medical records. It appears to be the dissent’s view that the support in plaintiff’s medical records for the shoulder injury having a degenerative origin are of no moment because plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Louis C. Rose, in his affirmation prepared for this litigation, offered a “diagnosis [that] . . . contrasts significantly with the one proffered by defendants’ experts.” However, the dissent offers no support for its view that there is a “factual disagreement” between the defense experts and plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Rose) on the diagnosis of the shoulder injury, as opposed to its etiology. Specifically, the dissent simply assumes that the defense experts’ diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the AC joint and chronic impingement syndrome were inconsistent with the presence of tears to the labrum and rotator cuff, which was Dr. Rose’s diagnosis. Nothing in the record supports the assumption that the conditions diagnosed by the defense experts do not result in tears to the labrum and rotator cuff. Franklin v Gareyua, 2016 NY Slip Op 00886, 1st Dept 2-9-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED TO REFUTE DEFENSE EXPERTS’ OPINION PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES DUE TO DEGENERATIVE CONDITION, NOT CAR ACCIDENT)

, ,

DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant landlord should not have been granted summary judgment in this lead-paint-injury action.  [The case presents another example of a defendant’s failure to affirmatively address all possible theories of recovery in summary-judgment-motion papers.] Defendant failed to demonstrate, inter alia, the absence of a hazardous condition and her lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition. On the issue of constructive notice, the court wrote:

In Chapman, the Court of Appeals [92 NY2d 9] addressed constructive notice, writing that “a triable issue of fact [on notice] is raised when [the evidence] shows that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” (id. at 15). Here, it is undisputed that defendant retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs; that she knew that the residence was constructed before lead-based paint was banned; and that she knew that young children lived in the apartment. Rodrigues v Lesser, 2016 NY Slip Op 00836, 4th Dept 2-5-16

 

,

FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY OF RECOVERY REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-VILLAGE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The Second Department, in this slip and fall case, determined that the village’s failure to address plaintiff’s allegation that the village created the dangerous condition (a one-inch higher portion of a sidewalk) required the denial of the village’s motion for summary judgment. [Another example of a defense summary judgment motion which did not affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.] The court explained the relevant law:

 

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . The bill of particulars alleged that the Village affirmatively created the dangerous condition which caused the accident. Therefore, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Village had to demonstrate, prima facie, both that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, and that it did not create the defect … . The Village established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, but it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not affirmatively create the alleged defect … . Therefore, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. McManus v Klein, 2016 NY Slip Op 00704, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LIABILITY ALLEGED UNDER COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE  AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THOSE THEORIES REQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF RECOVERY RREQUIRED DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

, ,

EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined affidavits by an orthopedist and a radiologist (Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne) submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been accepted by Supreme Court as admissible evidence of proximate cause of plaintiff’s back injury, even though the orthopedist and radiologist were not qualified to offer an opinion on whether defendant chiropractor deviated from the appropriate standard of care. Supreme Court had rejected the affidavits on the ground the orthopedist and radiologist were not qualified to assess the level of care provided by the defendant chiropractor. However, the affidavits addressed only the issue of proximate cause, stating that plaintiff’s injuries pre-dated the alleged negligent treatment by the chiropractor. Because the assessment of proximate cause was within the orthopedist’s and radiologist’s areas of expertise, the affidavits were admissible. However, the denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was affirmed because the defendant’s affidavit stating he did not deviate from the proper standard of chiropractic care was conclusory:

 

Physicians offering opinions in medical, dental, podiatric, chiropractic, or other specialty malpractice actions must establish their credentials in order for their expert opinions to be considered by courts. They do so by being specialists in the field that is the subject of the action, or if not specialists in the same field, then by possessing the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable … . Thus, when a physician offers an expert opinion outside of his or her specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered … .

Here, the opinions of Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne would not be admissible on the issue of the defendant’s alleged deviation or departure from the standard of chiropractic care, as neither physician indicated any familiarity with the standards of chiropractic practice. However, the opinions of Dr. Meyer and Dr. Coyne were not proffered to address the issue of whether the defendant deviated or departed from the relevant chiropractic standard of care. Rather, the affirmations of both physicians were clearly and narrowly drawn to address only the separate element of proximate cause. Bongiovanni v Cavagnuolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 00638, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE NARROW ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE)

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case because defendant did not demonstrate the non-party sublessee was responsible for maintaining the premises:

 

“[A]n out-of-possession landlord may be liable for injuries occurring on the premises if it has retained control of the premises, is contractually obligated to perform maintenance and repairs, or is obligated by statute to perform such maintenance and repairs'” … . However, “where the premises have been leased and subleased and the subtenant assumes the exclusive obligation to maintain the premises, both the out-of-possession landlord and the out-of-possession lessee/sublessor will be free from liability for injuries to a third party caused by the negligence of the subtenant in possession” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the nonparty sublessee assumed the exclusive obligation to maintain the premises, and that the defendant, as the lessee/sublessor, had no duty to maintain the premises … . Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Iturrino v Brisbane S. Setauket, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00480, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy