You are here: / Negligence
,

School’s Knowledge that Infant-Plaintiff Was Being Taunted and Bullied Did Not Constitute Notice that Another Student Would Act Violently Toward Infant-Plaintiff—Supervision Could Not Have Prevented the Sudden Action by the Student Who Pushed Infant-Plaintiff

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the defendant New York City public school was entitled to summary judgment dismissing infant-plaintiff’s “negligent supervision” complaint. Infant-plaintiff had been taunted and bullied by a fellow student, referred to in the decision as WEM. Infant-plaintiff was injured when WEM pushed him into a bookcase. Although infant-plaintiff’s teacher had been notified of WEM’s bullying on the day of the incident, and the school administration had been notified infant-plaintiff was being taunted and bullied by (unidentified) students, the majority concluded the school was not on notice that WEM would act violently toward infant-plaintiff, and, even if the school had been so notified, the sudden incident could not have been prevented by supervision. The majority wrote:

Initially, while “schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” …, “unanticipated third-party acts causing injury upon a fellow student will generally not give rise to a school’s liability in negligence absent actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct” … . Here, the record contains no evidence that the school had notice that WEM had a proclivity to engage in physically aggressive conduct. The evidence that plaintiff had complained to his teacher and others that WEM was “picking on him” and calling him names, and that his mother had called the principal’s office and reported that some unidentified boys were “picking on her son,” when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows only that the school knew that WEM had been picking on plaintiff verbally. Knowledge of such taunting, however, did not give the school “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice” of “prior conduct similar to the unanticipated injury-causing act” by WEM to support a finding of actual or constructive notice of the risk that he would engage in violent or physically aggressive behavior against plaintiff … .

Summary judgment is also warranted because plaintiff has not raised an issue as to proximate causation. There is no non-speculative basis for finding that any greater level of supervision than was provided would have prevented the sudden and spontaneous altercation between the two students. “Schools are not insurers of safety” and “cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . Emmanuel B. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06750, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

,

Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant property owners’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law after the close of proof. Plaintiff, who tripped over the lip on defendants’ driveway, alleged the driveway was defective. After proof was closed, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the company which renovated the driveway, but denied the property owners’ motion to dismiss. Because plaintiff’s only theory was that the driveway was defective, and the property owners could only be liable for a hazardous condition caused by a failure to properly maintain the property, the complaint against the property owners should have been dismissed as well:

Dismissal of an action insofar as asserted against a contractor who performs work on premises does not mandate dismissal of the action insofar as asserted against the owner of the premises, since the owner has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Here, however, the plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the driveway was defective. …[T]here was no evidence that the lip of the driveway was in a hazardous condition. Therefore, it was inconsistent to direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against [contractor] while denying such relief to the appellants as homeowners, since no viable alternative theory of liability was asserted against the appellants … . Cioffi v Klein, 2015 NY Slip Op 06704, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

,

A Phone Call, Even When Reduced to Writing, Does Not Satisfy the City’s “Written Notice of a Defect” Requirement

The Second Department determined the requirement that the city be notified in writing of a defect (here, a raised portion of a sidewalk) before liability for failing to repair will attach was not met.  A phone call from the abutting property owner to the municipality, even if the communication is reduced to writing, is not sufficient. The court further held that the “open request” generated by the abutting property owner’s “311” call did not constitute the city’s “written acknowledgment” of a defective condition (an alternative to the “written notice” requirement):

The City demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it by submitting evidence showing that no written notice of any defect was received with regard to the subject sidewalk … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, neither [the abutting property owner’s] “311” call nor the records generated by the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation (hereinafter the DPR) from that call provided the City with prior written notice of the sidewalk defect. A verbal or telephonic communication to a municipal body, even if reduced to writing, cannot satisfy the prior written notice requirement … . Nor did the “open request” generated from that “311” call, which was received by the DPR clerk on the computer system, constitute a “written acknowledgment” by the City of a defective condition … . Tortorici v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06721, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being “Bumped” by Another Go-Kart

The First Department determined plaintiff, a passenger in an electric, recreational go-kart, assumed the risk of injury alleged to have been caused by the go-kart being “bumped” by other go-karts. The court noted that (1) the written waiver of liability signed by the plaintiff was void as against public policy, and (2) the go-kart operator had a written policy prohibiting intentional “bumping,” but held that the common-law assumption of risk doctrine nevertheless applied:

[The “assumption of risk”] doctrine applies to “certain types of athletic or recreational activities,” where “a plaintiff who freely accepts a known risk commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk'” … . While “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others, or risks that are concealed or unreasonably enhanced” …, the concept of a “known” risk includes “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in the activity … .

The activity in which plaintiff engaged is a type to which the assumption of risk doctrine is appropriately applied. “In riding the go-cart, the plaintiff . . . assumed the risks inherent in the activity” … . Those risks included the risk “that the go-cart would bump into objects” … . Of course, the “apparent or reasonably foreseeable” risks inherent in go-karting also include the risk that vehicles racing around the track may intentionally or unintentionally collide with or bump into other go-karts. It is that inherent risk which “negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard [plaintiff] from the risk” … . Garnett v Strike Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06694, 1st Dept 9-1-15

 

,

Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Against School Should Have Been Dismissed

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department, over a strong dissent, determined the defendants’ motions for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff-student alleged he was injured when he tripped over another student’s (Maher’s) foot during a “speedball” game at school. Plaintiff-student provided conflicting statements about whether Maher had acted deliberately. With respect to the negligent supervision cause of action, the court wrote:

The School District’s submissions, including an affidavit of a physical education expert, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it … . The evidence submitted by the School District demonstrates that the incident occurred so quickly that it could not have been prevented by even the most intense supervision … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . While the plaintiffs emphasize that there is evidence in the record indicating that Maher had shoved another student in a gym class on an earlier date, this evidence was insufficiently specific to place the School District on notice of the conduct that led to the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Finally, while the compulsory nature of the gym class activities precludes an assumption of risk defense, it is not an impediment to summary judgment, as it does not deprive the School District of its defense that the incident was sudden and unexpected … . Scavelli v Town of Carmel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06666, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

, ,

Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

The Second Department determined defendants were entitled to depose a nonparty doctor whose notations in medical records expressed skepticism about the plaintiff’s claims re: the cause of her injuries. The court explained the applicable law:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure. The notice requirement of CPLR 3101(a)(4) “obligates the subpoenaing party to state, either on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it, the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required'” … . After the subpoenaing party has established compliance with the CPLR 3101(a)(4) notice requirement, disclosure from a nonparty requires no more than a showing that the requested information is relevant to the prosecution or defense of the action … . However, the party or nonparty moving to vacate the subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested deposition testimony “is utterly irrelevant'” to the action or that ” the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the … defendants satisfied the notice requirement. In a copy of the document entitled “Authorization to Permit the Interview of Treating Physician by Defense Counsel,” which was attached to the nonparty witness subpoena, “the circumstances or reasons” requiring the deposition of the nonparty were properly provided (CPLR 3101[a][4]). Since the … defendants met this minimal obligation, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish that the deposition testimony sought was irrelevant to this action, which she failed to do. Further, the … defendants demonstrated that it was relevant to the defense of the action … . Bianchi v Galster Mgt. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06568, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)

In a case which was consolidated with the case summarized immediately above, the Second Department determined the defendant, J.D. Posillica, Inc., was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because it had demonstrated that none of the three theories of “tort liability arising from a contract” applied. It is not clear from the decision whether the defendant was required, by the nature of the pleadings, to address all three theories in order to be entitled to summary judgment (to be safe, address all three?):

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . Here, the defendant J.D. Posillico, Inc. … , met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating, prima facie, that none of the exceptions were applicable as against it in this case… . Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06581, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Demonstrated Defendant’s Negligence and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault

The Second Department determined plaintiff-pedestrian, who was struck by defendant when in a crosswalk, was entitled to summary judgment.  The court explained plaintiff had demonstrated both required elements: (1) defendant was negligent; and (2) plaintiff was free from comparative negligence. Defendant’s opposing affidavit, which contradicted his deposition testimony, raised only “feigned” issues and did not, therefore, raise a question of fact:

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault …, since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Where a plaintiff has established his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party may defeat the motion by submitting sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault … .

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that, before entering the crosswalk at the southwest corner of 84th Street and 17th Avenue and during the course of crossing the street, he looked both ways for oncoming vehicles and that, as he was crossing 17th Avenue within the crosswalk, with the pedestrian control and traffic control devices in his favor, [defendant] failed to yield the right-of-way to him … . The evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated that [defendant] violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(a)(1) and that the plaintiff was not at comparative fault in the happening of the accident. In opposition, the defendants submitted [defendant-driver’s] affidavit, which contradicted his earlier deposition testimony, and merely raised what appear to be feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony. Thus, the affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact and was insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s motion… . Zhu v Natale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06586, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

Defendant, In Its Summary Judgment Motion, Properly Addressed Only the Theory of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Which Was Alleged in the Pleadings

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in an action based upon the allegation defendant had “launched an instrument of harm,” thereby imposing liability in tort arising from a contract. Defendant demonstrated it did not launch and instrument of harm and plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in response. The court explained the applicable law, noting that defendant need only address the specific theory of contract-based liability which was raised in the pleadings:

“Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . Here, the only exception alleged in the pleadings with respect to the defendant Wiley Engineering, P.C. (hereinafter Wiley), was that Wiley launched a force or instrument of harm … . Therefore, in moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, Wiley was only required to address this exception by demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm creating or exacerbating any allegedly dangerous condition … . Here, Wiley met its prima facie burden and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Reece v J.D. Posillico, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06580, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

Plaintiff, a Monitor in a Golf Program, Assumed the Risk of Injury in a Golf-Cart Accident

The First Department determined that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of riding in a golf cart driven by defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant were participating in a golf program. Defendant, 17-year-old Andrew Jiminez, was driving a golf cart with plaintiff as a passenger when he allegedly made a “full speed” sharp turn, throwing plaintiff out of the cart. Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury from defendant’s operation of the golf cart. The fact that plaintiff was not performing her golf-program duties at the time of the accident was deemed irrelevant:

A plaintiff who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational event generally is held to have consented to those commonly-appreciated risks that are inherent in, and arise out of, participation in the sport … . “It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have 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” … . A nonparticipant may also be subject to a defense based on the doctrine of assumed risk … .

“[G]olfers …. must be held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts on a fairway which is inherent in and aris[es] out of the nature of the sport generally and flow[s] from participation in it” … . Here, plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily rode in a golf cart operated by Jimenez, a 17 year old participant in the AGY program, on a golf course, during a golf tournament in which she was assigned to monitor a par-three hole for any player that got a hole in one. While plaintiff contends that she did not know that Jimenez was an unlicensed driver, she knew that he was a minor yet made no attempt to determine whether he had a license or whether he should be operating a golf cart.

The fact that plaintiff was not actively performing her duties of monitoring the hole at the time of her injury does not render the doctrine inapplicable. “[T]he assumption [of risk] doctrine applies to any facet of the activity inherent in it” … . The salient point is that the accident involved a sporting or recreational activity that “occurred in a designated athletic or recreational venue” … . Valverde v Great Expectations, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06561, 1st Dept 8-18-15

 

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