You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of the defendant in this traffic accident case divested the court of jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss by the decedent’s former attorneys, who had not been substituted for the decedent, should not have been considered by the court. The Appellate Division also noted that plaintiff’s motion to substitute decedent’s daughter as a representative for the decedent required notice to all persons interested in decedent’s estate:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” .. . “The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party” … . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, the motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint was made by the former attorneys for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorneys lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

Further, any motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide notice to persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion with leave to renew upon service on persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Fazilov v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 03470, Second Deppt 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant in a traffic accident case died. The decedent’s former attorneys did not have the authority to make a motion to dismiss and the court should not have considered it.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion to have decedent’s daughter substituted for decedent required notice all persons interested in decedent’s estate.

 

,

IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property management company (Fulton) was not entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff fell when a permanent ladder attached to the building came loose:

… [T]he Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the ladder, which the plaintiff described in his deposition as rusty and old. The evidence the Fulton defendants submitted in support of their motion “did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition of the [ladder] should have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection” … . Furthermore, the Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked control over the work site … . * * *

“The collapse of a scaffold or ladder for no apparent reason while a plaintiff is engaged in an activity enumerated under the statute creates a presumption that the ladder or scaffold did not afford proper protection” … . Through the submission of his deposition testimony, the plaintiff established … that he was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder collapsed for no apparent reason, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of his injuries … .

… [I]n opposition … the … defendants … failed to present a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident … . Valentin v Stathakos, 2024 NY Slip Op 03512, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the permanent ladder which came loose causing plaintiff’s fall was “old and rusty” which raised a question of fact whether the defendant property manager had constructive notice of the condition. The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

Practice Point: In the absence of evidence plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the collapse of a ladder warrants summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(10 cause of action.

 

,

A COUNTY MAY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVSION OF A VISIT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD BY A COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKER AT A PUBLIC PARK; HERE THE CHILD FELL WALKING UP A SLIDE; THE CASEWORKER DID NOT OBSERVE THE ACCIDENT BUT MOTHER WAS NEXT TO THE SLIDE AT THE TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. Plaintiff father alleged the county social services caseworker (Byrne) who supervised a visit between mother and the infant plaintiff at a public playground was negligent in allowing the child to walk up a slide where the infant plaintiff fell. Byrne did not observe the accident. The Second Department held Byrne was performing a governmental function, the county owed infant plaintiff a special duty, Byrne’s actions were not demonstrated to be discretionary, and the county did not demonstrate Byrne’s acts or omissions were not a proximate cause of the accident. The opinion provides a clear explanation of the complex issues associated with governmental liability in this “negligent supervision” context:

“Once it is determined that a municipality was exercising a governmental function, the next inquiry focuses on the extent to which the municipality owed a duty to the injured party” … . “In order to sustain liability against a municipality engaged in a governmental function, ‘the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally'” … . * * *

… “[U]nder the doctrine of governmental function immunity, government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general” … . * * *

… [T]he County may assume a special duty to a foster child during the course of visitation supervised by a DSS caseworker. * * *

Since Byrne acknowledged that he did not observe the infant plaintiff walking up the portion of the slide intended for children to slide down prior to the accident, it cannot be said that he made a discretionary decision whether or not the infant plaintiff’s behavior warranted his intervention. Thus, any exercise of discretion by Byrne during visitation bore no relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated. P.D. v County of Suffolk, 2024 NY Slip Op 03405, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: The complex criteria for government liability in a negligent-supervision-of-a-child case are clearly and comprehensively explained.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint, even though the note of issue and certificate of readiness had been filed. Defendant was unable to show any prejudice from the proposed amendment. The case was brought as a slip and fall which had been dismissed because plaintiff’s decedent did not identify the cause of the fall. Plaintiff sought to add a cause of action for negligent discharge from the hospital where the slip and fall occurred, which sounds in medical malpractice:

While “[i]t is well settled that [l]eave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” … , that policy does not apply “on the eve of trial,” and once a case has been certified ready for trial “there is a heavy burden on [a] plaintiff to show extraordinary circumstances to justify amendment by submitting affidavits which set forth the recent change of circumstances justifying the amendment and otherwise giving an adequate explanation for the delay” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the delay, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying the cross-motion for leave to amend the amended complaint to add a medical malpractice cause of action. Nevertheless, because defendant failed to establish any prejudice that would result from plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend, if further discovery is conducted, we modify the order in the exercise of our discretion by granting plaintiff leave to amend his amended complaint to assert a cause of action for the allegedly negligent discharge of decedent from defendant’s facility, and, further, striking the note of issue and certificate of readiness to allow for additional discovery … . Chapman v Olean Gen. Hosp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03271, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the post-note-of-issue motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action requiring further discovery was granted because the defendant was unable to demonstrate any prejudice.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff sufficiently identified the cause of her slip and fall and defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

… [D]efendants’ own submissions raise a triable issue of fact whether a dangerous condition existed on the premises. Defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, who testified that she fell “on something slippery.” Although plaintiff did not see anything on the floor before she fell, she testified that “the back of [her] sweatshirt, the back of [her] legs,” and her “entire back” were damp after she fell and that the floor was “really shiny[ and] glossy” and had a “medicinal stench.” Plaintiff also testified that she told the store manager that “there was something on the floor that [she] slipped on” and denied having described the slippery condition as “droplets of water” on the floor. We therefore conclude that defendants’ submissions raised triable issues of fact whether something other than water, incidental to the use of the bathroom, was on the floor “constitut[ing] an ‘unreasonably dangerous condition’ ” … . We further conclude that, “[a]lthough plaintiff was unable to identify the precise cause of her fall,” her testimony regarding the shiny, glossy floor that smelled medicinal rendered “any other potential cause of her fall sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

… Although defendants submitted the deposition testimony of the store manager, in which she testified that the store was cleaned by a crew every morning and that employees were charged with remedying any dangerous condition that they observed throughout their shifts, defendants’ evidence “failed to establish that the employees actually performed any [inspection] on the day of the incident, or that anyone actually inspected the area in question before plaintiff’s fall” … . Byrd v Target, 2024 NY Slip Op 03252, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff sufficiently identified the substance that caused her slip and fall in the bathroom as something other than water (a medicinal stench).

Practice Point: Defendants failed to prove the area was inspected close in time to the fall. Evidence of routine cleanings is not enough to show the lack of constructive notice.

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE TO HIS INSURANCE CARRIER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined plaintiff’s request for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier should have been denied:

The statements sought in plaintiff’s cross-motion constitute materials “produced solely in connection with the report of an accident to a liability insurance carrier . . . with respect to plaintiff’s claim [that] are not discoverable under CPLR 3101 (g), but rather are conditionally immunized from discovery under CPLR 3101 (d) (2)” … . Plaintiff failed to establish either that he has a “substantial need of the materials” or that he is “unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2] …). Fusco v Hansen, 2024 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point; Here in this traffic-accident case, plaintiff did not demonstrate a need for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier (CPLR 3101(d)(2)).

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action against Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) should not have been dismissed on the ground that the alleged abuser (a pastor) was not an employee. Although the abuser was hired by a third-party church, St. Nicodemus, the ELCA’s and the Synod’s constitution provided that ELCA and Synod exercised control over discipline and termination of the pastor. Therefore there were questions of fact about ELCA’s and Synod’s status as employers:

… According to the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws, the authority to discipline pastors within the ELCA was granted to the synods and the ELCA. The authority to remove a pastor from the roster of ordained ministers remained with the synods and the ELCA. Once a pastor was removed from the roster of ordained ministers, a congregation that chose to retain that pastor could be removed from the ELCA. The entire disciplinary process was created by and governed by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised an issue of fact whether the ELCA and the Synod exercised sufficient control over the retention and supervision of plaintiffs’ alleged abuser so as to constitute his employers … . PB-20 Doe v St. Nicodemus Lutheran Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although the pastor accused of abuse was hired by a specific Lutheran church (St. Nicodemus), the defendants Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) had the power to discipline and terminate the pastor. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendants were the pastor’s employers such that the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

, , ,

THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING DID NOT SET FORTH ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATION THE STATE WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY ANOTHER CHILD IN A FOSTER HOME AND BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A CHILDREN’S FACILITY; THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this Child Victims Act proceeding, determined the claim did not set forth any factual basis for the allegation defendants were or should have been aware of the abuse by a child in a foster home and by a staff member of a children’s facility. The claim, therefore, should have been dismissed:

Here, as to the abuse alleged at the foster home, the verified claim alleges only bare legal conclusions and lacks any factual specificity as to how defendant was put on notice of the danger posed by the minor perpetrator. As to the facility, the allegation that other staff members knew about the adult perpetrator’s participation in the off-campus overnight trips would not have put defendant on notice about the adult perpetrator’s propensity to sexually abuse children … . Although the allegation that a counselor discovered the sexual abuse may suffice to provide actual notice about the foreseeability of future abuse, the claim fails to allege that any such subsequent abuse took place … . Even granting the verified claim a liberal construction, presuming its allegations true and providing claimant the benefit of every possible inference, said claim failed to set forth any factual basis upon which defendant could have reasonably anticipated the perpetrators’ harmful conduct and, thus, it failed to “provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . As such, the Court of Claims erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss … . Berg v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03206, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: Here the allegation that the state was aware or should have been aware of the sexual abuse of the claimant by another child in a foster home and by a staff member of a children’s facility were not supported by any facts which would allow the state to investigate. Therefore the claim should have been dismissed by the Court of Claims.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO QUESTION PLAINTIFF’S CAR HYDROPLANED AND SLID INTO DEFENDANT’S LANE, DEFENDANT INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT HOW LONG PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS IN DEFENDANT’S LANE BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s own motion papers, which included the deposition testimony of plaintiffs, raised questions of fact about whether the emergency doctrine applied in this car accident case. Plaintiff testified her car hydroplaned on rain water and slid into the oncoming lane where her car was struck by defendant’s. Plaintiff testified he car came to a complete stop for as much as 20 seconds before the collision. Defendant alleged he had no time to brake when plaintiff’s car entered his lane:

“[I]n order for a driver to be entitled to summary judgment based upon the emergency doctrine, he or she must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the emergency situation with which he or she was confronted was not of his or her own making and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” … . There is no question that an emergency situation may arise “when a car going in the opposite direction crosses into the driver’s lane” … . Nevertheless, “summary judgment is only appropriate where it is established that the driver invoking the doctrine ‘did not contribute to the creation of the emergency situation, and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision’ ” … . Lee v Helsley, 2024 NY Slip Op 03213, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: If a party includes the opposing party’s deposition testimony in a summary judgment motion and the opposing party’s testimony raises a question of fact, summary judgment will be denied without the need to consider the opposing papers.

 

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 PROVIDES IMMUNITY FROM NEGLIGENCE SUITS STEMMING FROM AUTHORIZED RECREATIONAL USE OF THE OWNER’S PROPERTY, BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY FOR ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS BY THE OWNER ALLEGED TO BE “WILLFUL OR MALICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mountain biker’s (Fleming’s) cause of action alleging defendants’ failure to properly maintain a wooden bridge on a trail was properly dismissed pursuant to General Obligations law section 9-103. But the cause of action alleging the negligent failure to maintain the bridge and the negligent failure to to warn of the dangerous condition, which further alleged the failure was “willful or malicious,” should not have been dismissed. Willful and malicious actions are not within the scope of the immunity provided by General Obligations Law 9-103:

Plaintiffs [allege] that defendants had constructed and maintained the bridge in a manner that created a dangerous condition, and that, by failing to maintain the bridge and failing to warn of the dangerous condition, defendants’ actions had been willful and malicious. … [T]he limitation of liability provided by General Obligations Law § 9-103 does not extend to the failure to warn of a dangerous condition if that failure was “willful or malicious” … .

… Fleming avowed that he was riding a mountain bike on trails that were publicized to be suitable for such activity by the Town of Malta. Because the first cause of action alleged only ordinary negligence, defendants were entitled to the immunity afforded by General Obligations Law § 9-103 if they could establish that Fleming was “engaged in one of the enumerated recreational activities on land suitable for that activity” … .  Fleming v Jenna’s Forest Homeowners’ Assn., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03216, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: General Obligations Law 9-103 protects property owners from negligence suits based on the authorized recreational use of the property, but does not protect property owners from suits alleging injury from “willful or malicious” actions or omissions.

 

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