You are here: / Negligence

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP IN PARKING LOT WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION.

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised whether a wheel stop in a parking area was an open and obvious condition. A photograph demonstrated the wheel stop was partially obstructing a walkway:

Here, the defendants submitted the expert affidavit of a forensic engineer who determined that “the parking lot was a safe walking surface and adequately illuminated at night,” and that the wheel stop on which the injured plaintiff tripped “was an open and obvious condition” located “within a designated parking space” and not a pedestrian walkway. However, the photographs upon which the defendants’ expert partially relies depict the wheel stop as extending directly in front of, and thus partially obstructing, a designated pedestrian walkway. Thus, the defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden of showing that they neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Rivera v Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09087, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (WHEEL STOP NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)/WHEEL STOP (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WHEEL STOP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS)

,

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff student was injured when, during an unsupervised period of time prior to the beginning of football practice, a blocking sled was being misused to catapult players into the air. Plaintiff fractured both wrists. The Second Department held there was a question of fact re: the negligent supervision cause of action, and further held that the assumption of risk defense did not apply to the “horseplay” which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. With regard to assumption of the risk, the court wrote:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is most persuasively justified for its utility in facilitating ” free and vigorous participation in athletic activities'” … . By placing the risk of participation on the participants themselves, rather than on the sponsor, the doctrine encourages sponsorship, which leads to more opportunities to participate in sports or other recreational activities … . The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable to the conduct at issue in this case. …[T]he use of the blocking sled to catapult each other into the air is not the sort of “socially valuable voluntary activity” that the doctrine seeks to encourage … . Furthermore, the defendants did not establish that the commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of football generally and flow from such participation on the football team included the risk of sustaining injury after being catapulted through the air by a blocking sled … . Duffy v Long Beach City Sch. Dist.. 2015 NY Slip Op 09065. 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATIION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF STUDENTS)/NEGLIGENCE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (STUDENTS)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SCHOOL SPORTS, HORSEPLAY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HORSEPLAY)

,

CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

The Second Department determined that the city (NYC) was responsible for maintenance of grates or covers on sidewalks pursuant to the Rules of the City of New York Department of Transportation. Therefore plaintiff, who allegedly fell because a sidewalk hydrant valve cover was missing, could not sue the abutting landowners:

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes liability for injuries resulting from negligent sidewalk maintenance on the abutting property owners. However, Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-07(b) provides that owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of those covers and gratings and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware, and for ensuring that the hardware is flush with the surrounding street surface. “34 RCNY 2-01 includes a sidewalk’ within the definition of street'” … . Accordingly, the City, and not the defendants, was responsible for maintaining the condition of the area where the plaintiff fell … . “[T]here is nothing in section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York indicating that the City Council intended to supplant the provisions of 34 RCNY 2-07(b) and to allow a plaintiff to shift the statutory obligation of the owner of the cover or grating to the abutting property owner” … . Torres v Sander’s Furniture, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09091 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

 NEGLIGENCE (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/SLIP AND FALL (CITY [NYC], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY [NYC]], NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)/TRANSPORTATION, NYC DEPARTMENT OF (RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER)

,

MANUFACTURER OF A TUBE SLIDE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE THE TUBE SLIDE WAS LOCATED ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN CLIMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE TUBE SLIDE.

The Second Department determined both the manufacturer (Slip N Slide) of a tube slide (an enclosed plastic spiral tube) and the property owner (Philip Howard) where the tube slide was located were entitled to summary judgment. Infant plaintiff (ten years old) was injured when she fell while climbing on the outside of the tube slide. The Second Department determined the dangers of climbing on the outside of the tube were obvious and the tube slide was not inherently dangerous or defectively designed. In addition, the property owner demonstrated it did not create the hazardous condition or have constructive notice of it:

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Swing N Slide established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the tube slide was not inherently dangerous or otherwise defectively designed … . In addition, as here, “there is no liability for failure to warn where [the] risks and dangers are so obvious that they can ordinarily be appreciated by any consumer to the same extent that a formal warning would provide . . . or where they can be recognized simply as a matter of common sense” … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Swing N Slide’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against … .

Philip Howard also was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk'” … . “A defendant in a premises liability case may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, inter alia, by establishing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient time to remedy it, or that the accident was not foreseeable” … .

Here, Philip Howard demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the tube slide, which was neither inherently dangerous nor defectively designed, was installed and maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, there is no duty imposed upon a landlord to supervise children who are properly upon its premises … . Moseley v Philip Howard Apts. Tenants Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09080, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE CLIMBING ON OUTSIDE OF TUBE SLIDE)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE CLIMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF A TUBE SLIDE)

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony she “felt” liquid on the floor was sufficient evidence plaintiff was aware of the cause of her fall. And defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

Although the defendant presented evidence that it neither created, nor had actual notice of, the alleged condition, it failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged condition, as the defendant failed to tender any evidence establishing when the subject area was last inspected and cleaned prior to the accident … . Korn v Parkside Harbors Apts., 2015 NY Slip Op 09071, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

NEGLIGENCE (CAUSE OF FALL, PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEGE OF)/NEGLIGENCE (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF)/SLIP AND FALL (CAUSE OF FALL, PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE OF; CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE)

RARE CASE WHERE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Sailsman) was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. Defendant demonstrated that his snow removal efforts did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. [This case is noteworthy because the vast majority of defendants’  motions for summary judgment in similar cases are denied for failure to present the necessary evidence.]:

Sailsman made a prima facie showing that his property is a two-family home in which he resides, not subject to liability pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 (b), and that his voluntary snow removal efforts did not create or exacerbate the alleged hazardous condition on the sidewalk … . Sailsman testified that the day before the accident, he removed the snow and ice from the sidewalk and applied enough salt to completely melt the ice, and provided a neighbor’s affidavit confirming that the sidewalk was clear and safe to walk on, as well as photographs taken shortly after the accident. Montiel v Sailsman, 2015 NY Slip Op 08968, 1st Dept 12-8-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE DANGEROUS CONDITION)/SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE DANGEROUS CONDITION)/SLIP AND FALL (SNOW REMOVAL DID NOT CREATE DANGEROUS CONDITION)

,

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.

In a case with a substantial plaintiff’s verdict, the First Department noted the statement that the driver “made an illegal left turn,” which was attributed to the plaintiff, was properly redacted from the hospital records.  It was not clear the plaintiff made the statement.  Even if she did, plaintiff was not the driver so it was not a statement against plaintiff’s interest. The statement was not made for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment. And the statement does not relate to a matter of fact (“illegal” is a conclusion of law). The First Department further noted that the trial court’s preclusion of testimony by defendants’ experts was not an abuse of discretion. The defendants served their disclosures only days before the trial:

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony from defendants’ biomechanical and accident reconstruction experts because defendants served their disclosures only days before the scheduled trial date. We see no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion in precluding this testimony … , whether applying a “good cause” standard … or a “willful or prejudicial” standard … . We also see no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion in precluding testimony regarding a seatbelt defense … . Coleman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 08906, 1st Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN HOSPITAL RECORDS)/EVIDENCE (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN HOSPITAL RECORDS)/HOSPITAL RECORDS (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN)/EXPERT TESTIMONY (LATE NOTICE, PROPERLY PRECLUDED)/EVIDENCE (PRECLUSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPER, LATE DISCLOSURE)

BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department noted that, although a property owner is under no duty to remove snow and ice during a storm, if snow removal efforts are made, in moving for summary judgment, the property owner (here Chestnut Oaks) must affirmatively demonstrate the snow removal efforts did not create a hazardous condition. Chestnut Oaks’ failure to so demonstrate required denial of the motion:

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the Chestnut Oaks defendants had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that they neither created the ice condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . “Under the so-called storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . A person responsible for maintaining property is not under a duty to remove ice and snow until a reasonable time after the cessation of the storm … . However, if a storm is ongoing, and a property owner elects to remove snow, it must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm … . In such an instance, a property owner moving for summary judgment in a slip and fall case must demonstrate in support of its motion that the snow removal efforts it undertook neither created nor exacerbated the allegedly hazardous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall … . DeMonte v Chestnut Oaks at Chappaqua, 2015 NY Slip Op 08800, 2nd Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/SLIP AND FALL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/HAZARDOUS CONDITION, CREATION OF (SNOW REMOVAL)/SNOW REMOVAL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION)

A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS WHETHER DEFENDANT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STABBED BY A PATIENT OF THE FACILITY SHORTLY AFTER DISCHARGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendant drug treatment facility (Queens Village) did not demonstrate that it owed no duty  of care to plaintiff who was stabbed by a patient who had just been discharged by the facility. Queens Village is an alternative to incarceration. The patient was there because he had robbed a cab driver at gunpoint. The patient was discharged because he had pushed another patient to the ground and admitted drinking alcohol. The director of Queens Village indicated that the plan was to transfer the patient to an interim facility until he could be returned to the TASC program [Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities]. However, the patient apparently became enraged when told he was being discharged and was “escorted” from Queens Village by the police. There was no evidence the police took the patient into custody, or that the police were told by Queens Village to take the patient to the interim facility. The majority concluded that the evidence demonstrated Queens Village exercised sufficient control over the patient (he was to be transferred to an interim facility, not released) to give rise to a duty of care owed to plaintiff. Because Queens Village moved for summary judgment, the court deemed that Queens Village did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

Generally, the common law does not impose a duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others; rather, liability for the negligent acts of third persons “arises when the defendant has authority to control the actions of such third persons” … . * * *

The key factor in determining whether a defendant will be liable for the negligent acts of third persons is whether the defendant has sufficient authority to control the actions of such third persons … . Such authority, at a minimum, requires “an existing relationship between the defendant and the third person over whom charge’ is asserted” … .There is no question that Queens Village had “an existing relationship” and sufficient authority to control [the patient’s] actions. Oddo v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08943, 1st Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (DUTY OF CARE RE: THIRD PARTY)/DUTY OF CARE (OWED TO THIRD PARTY)/THIRD PARTY (DUTY OF CARE OWED TO)

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendant transit authority did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a slip and fall hazard because it did not present evidence of when the area was last cleaned and inspected or what the area looked like prior to the slip and fall:

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence … . ” To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The defendant failed to set forth when the subject platform was last inspected or what it looked like prior to the accident, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Roman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 08820,  2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (LACK OF NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE)//SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE)/NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF)

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