You are here: / Negligence

ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The court offered a clear, succinct explanation of the analytical criteria:

 

“When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . A nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause … .

Here, on his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit in which he stated that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear… . In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence either denying the plaintiff’s allegations or offering a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Binkowitz v Kolb, 2016 NY Slip Op 00462, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR LIABILITY)

, , ,

REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined certain discovery requests made by plaintiff in a medical malpractice action should not have been denied. Plaintiff alleged defendant surgeon’s (Panos’) and defendant hospital’s (Vassar’s) negligence were related to the unprecedented number of surgeries performed by defendant surgeon. Plaintiff sought all the records re: surgeries performed by defendant surgeon on the days plaintiff was operated on. The Second Department held that those records, with non-party names redacted, should be turned over but should not be disclosed beyond the parties and experts. With respect to requests for disclosure of complaints against defendant surgeon, the Second Department held that the documents should be turned over for in camera review to see if they are immune from discovery under the Public Health Law (quality assurance immunity):

 

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, to compel Vassar to produce intraoperative records pertaining to all surgical procedures performed by Panos on any nonparty patients on the three dates that he performed surgery on the plaintiff, reflecting every medical procedure performed during those surgical procedures, and should have denied that branch of Vassar’s cross motion which was for a protective order striking the plaintiff’s demand for those records … .

… [T]he plaintiff demanded that Vassar produce copies of any written complaints made to Vassar regarding Panos and any written responses thereto. Contrary to Vassar’s contention, these demands specified the documents to be disclosed with reasonable particularity (see CPLR 3120[2]…). Vassar further contends that these documents are immune from discovery pursuant to the quality assurance privilege (see Education Law § 6527[3], Public Health Law § 2805-m…). “Records generated at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes . . . should be privileged, whereas records simply duplicated by the committee are not necessarily privileged” … . Since it is impossible on this record to determine whether the subject documents were generated at the behest of a quality assurance committee for quality assurance purposes, we remit the matter for an in camera inspection of the documents requested … .  Gabriels v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00478, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

CONVERSION (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/REPLEVIN (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (CAUSE OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONVERSION, REPLEVIN AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED)

, , ,

MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney-defendants’ motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint should have been granted. The allegations of malpractice were deemed insufficient and were “utterly refuted” by the documentary evidence submitted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the lawyer’s negligence” … . “A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … . “[A] plaintiff must plead and prove actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney’s negligence” … . “Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action, and dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative” … . Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 00481, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT)/NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE INSUFFICIENT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALLEGATIONS OF ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE INSUFFICIENT)

, ,

THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT ACCURATELY STATED IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET; MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, because the jury instructions and verdict sheet did not accurately state the elements of malpractice based upon a lack of informed consent. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted. The elements of a “lack of informed consent” cause of action were explained:

“[L]ack of informed consent is a distinct cause of action requiring proof of facts not contemplated by an action based merely on allegations of negligence” … . 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 lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . “The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury” … . ” To state it in other terms, the causal connection between a doctor’s failure to perform his [or her] duty to inform and a patient’s right to recover exists only when it can be shown objectively that a reasonably prudent person would have decided against the procedures actually performed. Once that causal connection has been established, the cause of action in negligent malpractice for failure to inform has been made out and a jury may properly proceed to consider plaintiff’s damages’ ” … . Figueroa-Burgos v Bieniewicz, 2016 NY Slip Op 00329, 2nd Dept 1-20-16

NEGLIGENCE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURIES (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/VERDICT SHEET (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INFORMED CONSENT, LACK OF (JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT SHEET DID NOT ACCURATELY STATE THE ELEMENTS OF A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON A WET RAILROAD TIE WHICH LINED A PATH ON THE GOLF COURSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff golfer assumed the risk of slipping on a wet railroad tie which lined a path on the golf course:

 

Among the risks inherent in participating in a sport are the risks involved in the construction of the field, and any open and obvious conditions of the place where the sport is played … .

“[A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff” … . Moreover, “[i]t is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff [had] foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . While participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of concealed or unreasonably increased risks … , if “the risks are fully comprehended or obvious and the plaintiff has consented to them, the defendant has satisfied its only duty of care which is to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … . Bryant v Town of Brookhaven, 2016 NY Slip Op 00323, 2nd Dept 1-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (GOLFER ASSUMED RISK OF SLIPPING ON GOLF COURSE PATH)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (GOLFER ASSUMED RISK OF SLIPPING ON GOLF COURS PATH)

, ,

JURY CONFUSION, STEMMING FROM THE WORDING OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET, MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.

The First Department, in three, two-justice concurring opinions, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict should have granted on “jury confusion” grounds. Plaintiff had a kidney removed for his father’s transplant procedure. A “knot pusher device” was left inside plaintiff, and he underwent a second surgery to remove it. The jury, based on the special verdict sheet, indicated leaving the “knot pusher device” inside plaintiff was not the proximate cause of his injury, but the jury sent out a note stating the plaintiff should be awarded $50,000 for having to undergo the second procedure:

 

An examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was “unclear and confusing” …, because it did not provide for an award of damages caused by the need to undergo a second surgery. The confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet caused the jurors to experience substantial confusion in reaching their verdict … . While “[t]he ambiguity had been brought to the attention of the trial Justice before the jury was discharged and could have been corrected or at least clarified at that time” …, the court did not do so and a new trial  … is required to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Srikishun v Edye, 2016 NY Slip Op 00315, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT BECAUSE OF JURY CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE VERDICT SHEET SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURIES (NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DUE TO CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET)/VERDICT SHEET (CONFUSING SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.

The Third Department affirmed the denial of the hotel defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was severely injured and her husband was killed when the snowmobile they were using was struck by a car. The hotel promoted snowmobile tours. All the arrangements for the tour were made by the plaintiffs and hotel personnel. The actual tour was conducted by Adirondack Snowmobile Rental (ASR). The tour guide, driving the lead snowmobile, crossed a road without waiting for plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent, who were following. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent were struck by a car when they attempted to cross the road. The Third Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against the hotel defendants, alleging the hotel defendants were vicariously liable for the negligence of ASR under an apparent agency theory:

 

… “[I]t is fundamental to the principal/agent relationship that [a principal] is liable to a third person for the wrongful or negligent acts . . . of its agent when made within the general or apparent scope of the agent’s authority” … . To establish a negligence claim based upon an apparent agency theory, a plaintiff must show evidence of “words or conduct of the principal . . . communicated to a third party, which give rise to a reasonable belief and appearance that the agent possesses authority to [act on the principal’s behalf]” … .

Here, the evidence includes a screenshot of the resort’s website that can be read to suggest that snowmobiling is a service provided by defendants’ agents or employees, as it is listed among the winter activities available on the premises. … [P]laintiff stated that she and decedent only dealt with the resort staff in organizing the tour and had never heard of ASR prior to the tour’s commencement. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence claim based upon the doctrine of apparent agency. In our view, defendants’ promotional materials, together with the testimony regarding the overall experience that defendants and their staff strive to provide for guests of the resort, create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff could have reasonably believed that ASR possessed the authority to conduct the snowmobile tour as defendants’ agent … . Taylor v The Point at Saranac Lake, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00247, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

 

NEGLGENCE (TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT, AND INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS EXPLAINED)/INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF INJURY (CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant synagogue’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff was a participant in a study-abroad program run by defendant in Israel. She injured her knee and alleged she was prescribed physical therapy but defendant refused to provide it (delaying and compromising recovery). The First Department held defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff because it had agreed to provide medical care and was in the best position to protect plaintiff from injury. The court noted that defendant’s attempt to place the burden on plaintiff to demonstrate a causal link between her injury and the failure to provide physical therapy must fail in the context of a defense summary judgment motion. The burden never shifted to plaintiff on that issue because the defendant did not demonstrate, through an expert affidavit, the absence of causation. [Yet another example of the need for a defendant to present affirmative proof on every relevant issue when seeking summary judgment. Without affirmative proof on a necessary issue, the burden never shifts to plaintiff.]:

 

The existence of a duty depends on the circumstances, and the issue is one of law for the court; “the court is to apply a broad range of societal and policy factors” … .

In determining the threshold question of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care, courts must balance relevant factors, “including the reasonable expectations of parties and society generally, the proliferation of claims, the likelihood of unlimited or insurer-like liability, disproportionate risk and reparation allocation, and public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability” … . The parties’ relationship may create a duty where it “places the defendant in the best position to protect against the risk of harm [] and [] the specter of limitless liability is not present” … . Thus, where a defendant exercises a sufficient degree of control over an event, a duty of care to plaintiff may arise … .

Here, the parties’ relationship created a duty to provide plaintiff with the necessary medical care because not only did defendant agree to do so, it was in the “best position to protect against the risk of harm” and “the specter of limitless liability [was] not present” … . The program was not an ordinary college or study-abroad program. Indeed, the second “semester” did not take place in a university environment. Rather, it took place in Yerucham, a small town in the Negev desert, involved volunteering, and was supervised by counselors who did “[p]retty much everything,” including responding to medical issues. Under the circumstances, defendant exercised a sufficient degree of control over the program to create a duty of care to plaintiff … . Katz v United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 2016 NY Slip Op 00094, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/DUTY OF CARE (OPERATOR OF STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM OWED DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT)/EVIDENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF CAUSATION IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST SUBMIT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON ISSUE OF CAUSATION OF INJURY, ABSENT AFFIRMATIVE PROOF BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF ON THAT ISSUE)

,

SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s and county’s motions for summary judgment should have been granted on governmental-immunity grounds. Plaintiff’s daughter, Bynum, ingested a harmful substance at a music festival. Plaintiff sued the town and county alleging they negligently issued the permits for the festival without making sure there were adequate emergency medical services to accommodate the crowd. The Third Department held the town and county were immune from suit because the issuance of permits is a governmental function and plaintiff did not demonstrate a special relationship between Bynum and the town or county:

 

Where, as here, a municipality engages in a quintessential governmental function such as the issuance of permits, even if it does so negligently, the municipality is immune from liability unless it owed “a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . As relevant here, to prove a special duty to Bynum, plaintiff must establish “[t]he elements of a special relationship includ[ing] . . . direct contact between the municipality’s agents and [Bynum], and [Bynum’s] justifiable reliance . . . on the municipality’s affirmative promise to act” … .

Viewing the pleadings and submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and providing her with every favorable inference … , we must agree with defendants that plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars are devoid of factual allegations that Bynum had any direct contact with defendants, or that she relied upon any affirmative promise that defendants’ agents would keep her safe while she attended [the festival]. Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00091, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)

,

THEORIES OF LIABILITY NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM THE NOTICE OF CLAIM CAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to allow the supplementing of a bill of particulars because the new theories of liability could not be implied from the notice of claim. This was a slip and fall case. The notice of claim alleged the fall was caused by liquid on a stair. The supplemental bill sought to allege the stair was defective and a building employee was not properly trained:

 

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he may not rely on his testimony at his General Municipal Law § 50-H hearing to rectify any deficiencies in the notice of claim, because he never testified that there was an issue with the step itself and traditionally such testimony has only been “permitted to clarify the location of an accident or the nature of injuries, [it] may not be used to amend the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim where, as here, amendment would change the nature of the claim'” … .

Accordingly, the motion court properly struck the allegations from the supplemental bill of particulars, as new theories of liability that cannot be fairly implied from the notice of claim, and precluded plaintiff’s expert from testifying with regard to them … . Lewis v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00040, 1st Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BILL OF PARTICULARS CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)

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