You are here: / Negligence

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL.

The First Department determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case because the sidewalk defect was trivial:

 

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped and fell on a long crack between pavement flags in a walkway that was between two buildings owned by defendants. Defendants submitted evidence, including deposition testimony, an affidavit of an inspector who measured the crack as 1/4″ deep, and photographs, demonstrating that the subject defect was trivial and thus, not actionable … . The photographs show that the crack was in the middle of the walkway, in a well-illuminated location, and was not hidden or covered in any way so as to make it difficult to see and identify as a hazard … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the crack in the walkway constituted a dangerous condition under the circumstances. She provided no affidavit of a person who had measured the crack, but only her own and her daughter’s estimates of its depth. Garcia v 549 Inwood Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01249, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/SLIP AD FALL (SIDEWALK DEFECT TRIVIAL)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SIDEWALK CRACK)

,

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Infant plaintiff was injured playing basketball when he struck the pole holding the hoop. The Second Department held the school district had demonstrated infant plaintiff assumed the risk of that injury:

 

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies where a consenting participant in a sporting activity “is aware of the risks [inherent in the activity]; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks” … . “However, the doctrine will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … .

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging premises liability by demonstrating that the subject pole was open and apparent, that the risk of colliding with it was inherent in the activity of playing basketball in the courtyard, that the defendant did nothing to conceal or unreasonably increase the risk, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in the activity at that location, as he had on numerous prior occasions … . Altagracia v Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 01141, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/BASKETBALL (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY PLAYING BASKETBALL)

, ,

CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING A POLICE VAN.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this car-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a police van driven by an unlicensed car-wash attendant. The city was not liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to the unlicensed driver because, inter alia, there was no duty to make sure the attendant had a license before handing over the keys to him. In addition, the city was not vicariously liable as the owner of the van pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. Police vehicles are statutorily exempt from such liability. Plaintiff argued that the exemption did not apply because the van was not being “operated” by the police department at the time of the accident. The First Department held that “operated” in this context means “to exercise power over,” and not “driven:”

 

Plaintiff’s argument that the NYPD traffic van does not qualify as a “police vehicle,” because it was not being “operated by the police department” at the time of the accident, but, rather, was being “operated” by the car wash attendant, assumes that the term “operated” means “to cause to function” (Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary, http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operate [accessed Jan. 27, 2016]) or is a substitute for the word “driven.” This ignores the common use of the term “operated” as an intransitive verb meaning “to exert power or influence” (id.). Under plaintiff’s interpretation, a police vehicle would not qualify as such under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 132-a, unless it was being driven by “the police department,” which strains common sense, since a police department cannot be the driver of a vehicle.

More importantly, plaintiff’s interpretation would strip the exemption provided to police vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) of its force and effect. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 specifically contemplates that someone, other than the vehicle’s owner, is driving the vehicle when an injury occurs. If “police vehicles” are only exempted when an owner or owner equivalent is driving, there would be no need for the exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2). This interpretation is untenable as it would render the police vehicle exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) meaningless … . Guevara v Ortega, 2016 NY Slip Op 01106, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the defendants in a slip and fall case were not entitled to summary judgment because they did not affirmatively demonstrate a lack of notice of the icy condition:

 

Defendants did not demonstrate that they lacked constructive notice of the icy condition since they did not proffer an affidavit or testimony based on personal knowledge as to when its employees last inspected the driveway or as to the driveway’s condition prior to the accident … . The testimony of defendants’ branch manager as to his usual and customary practice of inspecting the premises each morning does not satisfy defendants’ burden of showing that they lacked notice of the alleged condition of the driveway prior to the accident, as there was no evidence to show that the manager’s customary practice was followed on the day of the accident … . Singh v Citibank, N.A., 2016 NY Slip Op 01120, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SKIER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STRIKING A SNOWMAKING MACHINE.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether he assumed the risk of a skiing injury. Plaintiff fell and slid headfirst into an unpadded portion of a pole on a snowmaking machine. The court rejected defendant’ argument that the General Obligations Law, not the common law controlled:

 

Although there was padding on the upper portion of the pole, plaintiff collided with the lower, unpadded portion of the pole. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff assumed the risks associated with the sport of skiing. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court properly denied the motion. We note at the outset that General Obligations Law § 18-107 provides that, “[u]nless otherwise specifically provided in this article, the duties of skiers, passengers, and ski operators shall be governed by common law” and, contrary to defendant’s contention, the precise circumstances of plaintiff’s accident are not covered by article 18 of the General Obligations Law. Thus, the common law applies where, as here, plaintiff is alleging the negligent placement and inadequate padding of defendant’s snowmaking machines, a condition not “specifically addressed by the statute” … .

It is well settled under the common law that “[v]oluntary participants in the sport of downhill skiing assume the inherent risks of personal injury caused by, among other things, terrain, weather conditions, ice, trees and man-made objects that are incidental to the provision or maintenance of a ski facility” … . Here, although defendant met its initial burden by establishing that the accident was caused by the inherent risks in the sport of downhill skiing, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of his expert … . Plaintiff’s expert asserted therein that the snowmaking machine was on the ski trail and was insufficiently padded, thus raising an issue of fact whether defendant “failed to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition” … . Dailey v Labrador Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01072, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP SUPPORTED AN INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION)/MALPRACTICE, INSURANCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP SUPPORTING AN INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION EXISTED)

,

FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, found that a property owner, West River, which had a statutory duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment based solely on the fact that the defect in the sidewalk over which plaintiff tripped was not in front West River’s property. The expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was in front of a neighboring property (the Mercado property). However, a nearby portion of the sidewalk which had subsided was in front of West River’s property. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, West River was required to demonstrate it did not breach its duty to maintain the sidewalk, or that any such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.  Simply demonstrating the expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of West River’s property was not enough:

 

Plaintiff tripped on an expansion joint that abutted the Mercados’ property. That does not end the inquiry, nor does the fact that the defect upon which plaintiff tripped was in front of the Mercado property necessarily absolve West River of liability. Although West River did not have a duty to remedy any defects in front of the Mercado property, section 7-210 (a) [of the Administrative Code of the City of New York] imposed a duty on West River to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, the plain language of section 7-210 (b) provides that West River may be held liable for injuries where its failure to maintain its sidewalk is a proximate cause of that injury. Here, most of the sunken sidewalk flag that plaintiff traversed abutted West River’s property, and plaintiff claims that West River’s sidewalk flag had sunk lower than the expansion joint upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped. Thus, West River failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leaving factual questions as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk flag abutting its property and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment should have been denied. Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01002, CtApp 2-11-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SIDEWALKS (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s representative had raised a question of fact whether the driver of a city dump truck was negligent. Decedent was a passenger in a car which struck the back of the dump struck which was either stopped or coming to a stop in the left lane of the highway. Although the driver of the truck testified a tire had just blown, causing the truck to veer to the left, the truck was still moving when struck, and the emergency flashing lights were on, the sole eyewitness testified the truck was parked and its lights were not on:

 

The City made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its truck was lawfully stopped on the highway due to an emergency (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202[a][1][j]) when it was struck in the rear by the Cadena vehicle. However, in opposition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affording him the benefit of every favorable inference …, and applying the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80) to hold him to a lesser standard of proof, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck driver exercised reasonable care in warning other drivers of the hazard posed by his disabled vehicle. Generally, when one causes a public road to become obstructed, there is a duty to “exercise[ ] the care that a reasonably prudent person should have under all the circumstances” … . The exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances may include warning other motorists of the hazards posed by the obstruction … . Typically, whether reasonable care was exercised is a question of fact … .

The City’s truck driver testified at a deposition that the truck’s headlights were on, that after the blowout of the tire he activated the truck’s emergency lights, and that the accident occurred within seconds of veering into the left lane while he was still moving 10 to 15 miles per hour. However, the sole eyewitness to the accident, Weiguo Qu, indicated that he saw the truck “parked” in the left lane of a highway with its lights off and no flashing lights. In light of this conflicting evidence, triable issues of fact exist regarding, among other things, whether the City’s truck driver failed to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the obstruction and, if so, whether such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . Pinilla v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00953, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

EMINENT DOMAIN (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/LANDLORD-TENANT (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/TRADE FIXTURES (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)

, ,

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE SCARRING WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONSENT FORM, AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT SCARRING, REQUIRED DENIAL OF PHYSICIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant physician (Barazani) was not entitled to summary judgment on the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, despite the plaintiff’s signing of a consent form. Although the consent form mentioned scarring as a possibility, there was no showing the defendant discussed scarring with the plaintiff before the consent form was signed. In addition, there was no showing plaintiff would have gone through with the surgery had scarring been adequately discussed. [Another example of the need for a defendant seeking summary judgment to affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.]:

 

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[1]…).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The consent form provided by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff warned generally that there was a risk of scarring after the biopsy was conducted. However, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Barazani, which was submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, revealed a factual dispute as to whether Barazani properly advised the plaintiff of the risk of scarring before she signed the form … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that if the plaintiff had received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure … . Schussheim v Barazani, 2016 NY Slip Op 00958, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)
, ,

SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY ENTERTAINED; ABSENCE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST POLICE.

In finding the defendant-city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted, the Second Department noted that, although successive summary judgment motions are disfavored, the defendant-city’s second motion was properly entertained. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the police stemming from an attack on her by her husband and the shooting of her husband by the police. Prior to the attack and the shooting, plaintiff had gone to the police station seeking protection but was sent home. The negligence action against the city/police was dismissed on governmental immunity grounds because no “special relationship” between plaintiff and the police had been demonstrated:

 

That branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment should have been granted. Although successive motions for summary judgment are disfavored, a subsequent summary judgment motion may be properly entertained when it is substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts … .

Generally, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection” … . When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person … . A special duty is “a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,” and “is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . The elements required to establish a special relationship are: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the police did not assume an affirmative duty to act on Dawes’ behalf … . Graham v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00932, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/POLICE (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP, NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE DISMISSED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

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