You are here: / Negligence
,

Question of Fact Whether the Municipality Created the Road Defect Thereby Negating the Notice Requirement—Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Sufficiently Identified Cause of Fall

The Fourth Department determined the requirement that the municipality be notified of a road defect before liability can attach did not preclude suit because there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the defect. The court also determined the plaintiff’s identification of the cause of the fall from his bicycle was sufficient to allow a jury to identify the cause without resort to speculation:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it did not receive prior written notice of any defective or dangerous condition. Defendant asserted on its motion, and plaintiff conceded, that defendant did not have any such notice (…see generally Village Law § 6-628). Therefore, this case turns on whether defendant created the allegedly defective or dangerous condition with an “affirmative act of negligence” … . Here, plaintiff’s expert opined that the dangerous condition was caused by the intentional removal of paving material from the area adjacent to the water valve box cover at the time the roadway was resurfaced, and we therefore conclude that “plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendant created a dangerous condition that caused the accident” … . * * *

Although a defendant ” may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall’ without engaging in speculation” …, we conclude that defendant failed to meet that burden here … . In support of its motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony and plaintiff’s testimony from a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, in which plaintiff testified that the accident occurred after the front wheel of the bicycle hit something on the roadway. Although plaintiff could not remember seeing the object with which he collided, he testified that the accident occurred in the immediate vicinity of a gap in the pavement adjacent to a water valve box cover, “thereby rendering any other potential cause of [his] 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’ ” … . Swietlikowski v Village of Herkimer, 2015 NY Slip Op 07405, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action against the mechanic who inspected the defendant’s (Golley’s) car, with which plaintiff’s motorcycle collided. Plaintiff alleged the mechanic negligently allowed Golley’s car to pass inspection. However, the complaint did not demonstrate the mechanic owed a duty of care to plaintiff by creating or exacerbating any dangerous condition in Golley’s car. The court explained the relevant law:

Here, plaintiff alleged with respect to defendant that he knowingly passed a vehicle for inspection that should not have passed, but he did not allege, either in the complaint or in opposition to the motion, that defendant created or exacerbated any dangerous condition relating to Golley’s vehicle by inspecting it. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did not conduct a proper inspection of Golley’s vehicle, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to allege that defendant assumed a duty to plaintiff by “launch[ing] an instrument of harm since there is no reason to believe that the inspection made [Golley’s] vehicle less safe than it was beforehand … . Murray v Golley, 2015 NY Slip Op 07395, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Injury from Colliding With a Window Near the Basketball Court

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether he assumed the risk of injury from colliding with an breaking a window near the basketball court on which he was playing. Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit alleging that the window should have been covered with a screen or otherwise made safe. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the window represented a risk over and above the dangers inherent in the sport:

It is well settled that, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks [that] are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . “A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to concealed or unreasonably increased risks’ ” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of a licensed architect who opined that the window involved in the accident did not meet industry standards for use in a gymnasium because the glass was not covered by a protective screen, nor was it laminated or tempered to withstand impact by a person … . Thus, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant ” created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport’ ” of basketball… . Barends v Town of Cheektowaga, 2015 NY Slip Op 0737, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

Critieria for Amendement of a Notice of Claim Explained

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim to include mention of a defective handrail, despite plaintiff’s failure to invoke the proper statutory authority (General Municipla Law 50-e(5)). The court explained the criteria for an amendment:

Under GML § 50-e(5), a notice of claim may be amended within one year and ninety days of an accident to include new theories of liability … . Plaintiff’s cross motion was made eleven months after the accident, well within the one-year-and-ninety- day limitation period.

In determining whether an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, a court shall consider “whether the public corporation . . . acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time specified in subdivision one . . . or within a reasonable time thereafter” (GML § 50-e[5]). The court shall also consider “all other relevant facts and circumstances,” including whether the delay “substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits” (id.).

“In determining whether the city was prejudiced by any mistake, omission, irregularity or defect in the notice [of claim], the court may look to evidence adduced at a section 50-h hearing, and to such other evidence as is properly before the court'” … . * * *

We have previously held that prejudice will not be presumed … . Moreover, “[i]t may not be shown without evidence of an attempt to investigate the accident” … . Given defendant’s actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the accident, and the lack of evidence of an attempt to conduct an investigation either before or after it obtained knowledge of the issue concerning the handrail in this accident …, “conclusory assertions of prejudice, based solely on the delay in serving the notice of claim, are insufficient” … . Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 07328, 1st Dept 10-8-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Lead-Paint-Exposure Cause of Action Described

In finding plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether one of the defendant landlords was aware of peeling lead paint in the apartment (because of alleged complaints about it), the Fourth Depatment explained the elements of a lead-paint-exposure cause of action:

” To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition,’ ” and failed to do so … . Thus, to meet their burden on their motions for summary judgment with respect to the premises liability causes of action, defendants were required to establish that they “had no actual or constructive notice of the hazardous lead paint condition prior to an inspection conducted by the [Oswego] County Department of Health” (…see generally Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9, 15). … “[T]he factors set forth in Chapman . . . remain the bases for determining whether a landlord knew or should have known of the existence of a hazardous lead paint condition and thus may be held liable in a lead paint case”… . Kimball v Normandeau, 2015 NY Slip Op 07357, 4th Dept 10-8-15

 

, ,

No “Special Relationship” Between Plaintiff and City, City Not Liable for Shooting of the Plaintiff by a Civilian as Police Were Leaving the Scene of a Disturbance

The Second Department determined the city was properly granted summary judgment in an action by the victim of a (civilian) shooting. Plaintiff was involved in some sort of an altercation. The police arrived and ordered the group to disperse. As the police were leaving, plaintiff was shot in the back. The court explained that the city could not be held liable for performance of a governmental function (police protection) unless there was a “special duty” owed plaintiff. No “special duty” was demonstrated here:

“Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public'” … . The provision of police protection is a “classic” governmental function, and a municipality’s general duty to furnish police protection “does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created” … . A special duty—”a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff”—is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . As relevant here, a special relationship can be formed when the following elements are present: “(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 City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that no special relationship was created through the voluntary assumption of a duty to the injured plaintiff, either individually or as a member of a specific class … . Even if there had been a duty here, the evidence submitted by the City defendants established that the injured plaintiff did not justifiably rely upon an affirmative undertaking by the City defendants … . Moore v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 07249, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

, ,

Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply to Causes of Action in Amended Complaint—Amendment Should Not Have Been Allowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have allowed the amendment of a medical malpractice complaint to add causes of action for negligent hiring and supervision. The negligent hiring and supervision allegations were time barred and were different from the medical malpractice allegations such that the relation back doctrine did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 203(f), claims asserted in an amended complaint are “deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203[f]). Thus, when the nature of a newly asserted cause of action is distinct from the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and requires different factual allegations as to the underlying conduct than were contained in the original complaint, the new claims will not “relate back” in time to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the allegations in the original complaint in support of the causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent gave [defendant] notice of the “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved” with respect to the claims of negligent hiring and supervision … . The causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent are distinct not only as to the conduct alleged, but also as to the dates on which the conduct occurred and who engaged in it … . The mere reference to “negligence” in the original complaint did not give [defendant] notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved with respect to the proposed causes of action alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision. Thus, those proposed causes of action could not be deemed to relate back to the interposition of the causes of action in the original complaint … . Calamari v Panos, 2015 NY Slip Op 06875, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

Slip and Fall on a Sloped, Grassy Area Not Actionable

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a sloped, grassy area on defendant’s property. The court held that the condition was “open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.” Correnti v Chinchilla, 2015 NY Slip Op 06878, 2nd Dept 9–23-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether City Liable for Shooting by an Off-Duty Police Officer Under Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision Theory—Akin to Negligently Entrusting a Dangerous Instrumentality (Weapon) to Another

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the city was liable for the death of the police officer’s girlfriend (plaintiff’s decedent) under a negligent hiring/retention/supervision theory. The shooting occurred when the officer, Maselli, was off duty in his home. Plaintiff alleged the city had notice of Maselli’s violent propensities:

In this case, the alleged duty owed to plaintiff stems from New York’s long recognized tort of negligent hiring and retention … . This tort applies equally to municipalities and private employers … . This theory of employer liability should be distinguished from the established legal doctrine of “respondeat superior,” where an employer is held liable for the wrongs or negligence of an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s duties or in furtherance of the employer’s interests … . In contrast, under the theory of negligent hiring and retention, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee acting outside the scope of his or her employment … .

Thus, in this case, plaintiffs’ negligence claims do not depend on whether Maselli acted within the scope of his employment or whether the City participated in, authorized, or ratified Maselli’s tortious conduct. Rather, the alleged breach of duty stems from the claim that during Maselli’s employment with the City, the City became aware or should have become aware of problems with Maselli that indicated he was unfit (i.e. possessed violent propensities), that the City failed to take further action such as an investigation, discharge, or reassignment, and that plaintiff’s damages were caused by the City’s negligent retention, or supervision of Maselli.

The negligent retention or supervision of a police officer, which results in the employee having possession of a dangerous instrumentality, is similar to if not indistinguishable from the tort of entrusting a dangerous instrumentality to another. The duty analysis should be the same. “One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them” … . The duty not to entrust a gun to a dangerous or incompetent police officer thus extends to any person injured as a result of the negligent entrustment. Gonzalez v City of the New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06869, 1st Dept 9-22-15

 

,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Plaintiff’s Statements in Hospital Record Not Admissible—No Relation to Diagnosis and Not Admissions

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in a rear-end collision case. Plaintiff was driving 30 miles an hour when her car was struck from behind, indicating defendant-driver did not maintain a safe distance between the two cars. The court noted that statements made by the plaintiff which were memorialized in a hospital record were inadmissible because the statements were not necessary for diagnostic purposes and were not admissions:

Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through her affidavit, that she was operating her vehicle in a lane of the Cross Bronx Expressway, proceeding straight ahead at approximately 30 miles per hour with her foot on the gas pedal, when her vehicle was struck in the rear within her lane of travel, suddenly and without warning, by the defendants’ vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that [defendant-driver] was negligent in failing to maintain a safe distance behind her vehicle, and that she did not contribute to the happening of the accident … . * * *

… [T]he defendants could not rely on certain statements in the plaintiff’s hospital records to raise a triable issue of fact, since, under the circumstances presented here, the details of how the plaintiff sustained particular injuries and how the accident occurred in this matter were not useful for purposes of her medical diagnosis or treatment and, accordingly, a medical chart entry containing such hearsay statements could not be considered to have been prepared in the regular course of the hospital’s business … . Accordingly, the statements contained in the chart entry are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, the entry was not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s description of the accident, as provided in her affidavit. Consequently, the entry was not admissible as an admission by the plaintiff … . Service v McCoy, 2015 NY Slip Op 06801, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

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