You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

Apportionment of Damages Between the City and the Contractor Who Negligently Set Up Lane Closures for Its Highway Work Was Not Supported by the Weight of the Evidence—New Trial for Apportionment of Damages Ordered/Two-Justice Dissenting Opinion Argued that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Vouching for His Own Credibility and Attacking the Credibility of Defense Witnesses In Summation Warranted a New Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the weight of the evidence did not support a 65%/35% apportionment of damages to the city (65%) and the contractor (35%) who set up lane closures for highway repair work. Plaintiff was severely injured in an accident which the jury found was the result of the failure to adequately warn drivers of upcoming lane closures. Because the lane closures were the responsibility of the contractor, the majority determined the 65%/35% damages apportionment was not supported the weight of the evidence and sent the matter back for a new trial on the apportionment of liability. Much of the opinion, including the entirety of the dissenting opinion, focused on the propriety of remarks made by plaintiffs’ counsel during summation (vouching for his own credibility, attacking the credibility of defense witnesses, etc.):

It is well settled that trial counsel is afforded wide latitude in presenting arguments to a jury in summation … . During summation, an attorney “remains within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment in pointing out the insufficiency and contradictory nature of a plaintiff’s proofs without depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial” … . However, an attorney may not “bolster his case . . . by repeated accusations that the witnesses for the other side are liars” …. .

Although the City failed to object to the bulk of the challenged comments during summation, the City moved for an immediate mistrial based on comments impugning defense counsel, the reference to “Wang and his gang,” and plaintiffs’ counsel’s allegedly vouching for his own credibility. We find that although some of the comments were highly inflammatory, they did not ” create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair'” … . The jury had ample reason to question the testimony of Officer Pagano, lessening the danger that they were improperly influenced by plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks. Gregware v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06408, 1st Dept 8-4-15

 

, ,

Village Immune from Suit Alleging Negligence of Ambulance Personnel Who Responded to a 911 Call

The Second Department determined the village was entitled to summary judgment in an action alleging negligence on the part of ambulance personnel responding to a 911 call. The ambulance service is a governmental function for which the city cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with plaintiff (not the case here). The court explained the relevant law:

“When a municipality provides ambulance service by emergency medical technicians in response to a 911 call for assistance, it performs a governmental function and cannot be held liable unless it owed a special duty’ to the injured party” … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally,” or, in other words, where the municipality “voluntarily assumed a special relationship’ with the plaintiffs” … . A municipality will be held to have voluntarily assumed a duty or special relationship with the plaintiffs where there is: “(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” … . Earle v Village of Lindenhurst, 2015 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant bar was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by an intoxicated patron. The court explained the proof requirements under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101):

… [W]here a plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted by an intoxicated individual, to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act, a defendant is “required to establish either that it did not serve alcohol to [the plaintiff’s assailant] while he [or she] was visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him [or her] had no reasonable or practical connection to the assault” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Covert v Wisla Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06308, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, , ,

Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable

The Second Department determined the city and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) were immune from suit by plaintiff, who was assaulted in a city homeless shelter. The city’s obligation to provide security is a governmental function for which it cannot be held liable absent a special relationship with the plaintiff (not the case here).  However, the private security company, FJC  was not immune from suit. Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between DHS and FJC. FJC was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate it was not negligent and the attack was not foreseeable:

The plaintiff’s theory of recovery was premised upon the alleged failure of the municipal defendants to provide an adequate and proper security force to prevent attacks by third parties at the homeless shelter where the subject incident occurred. Such a claim, however, implicates a governmental function, liability for the performance of which is barred absent the breach of a special duty owed to the injured party … . Here, the municipal defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they owed no special duty of care to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Therefore, that branch of the municipal defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them was properly granted … . …

However, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the motion of the defendant FJC Security Services, Inc. (hereinafter FJC), which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its contention, FJC, a private, for-profit contractor of security services, is not entitled to governmental immunity … . In addition, the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between FJC and DHS. The provisions of the contract between FJC and DHS unequivocally express an intent to confer a direct benefit on the homeless clients in residence at the City shelter, such as the plaintiff, to protect them from physical injury. Thus, in order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, FJC was required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there were no triable issues of fact as to whether it was negligent in the performance of its duties, or that the assault on the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any breach of its duties … .  FJC failed to demonstrate either. Clark v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06307, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment

The Second Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the city in a suit stemming from a playground injury. The complaint alleged the design of the playground equipment was unsafe. The city claimed qualified immunity for liability arising from planning decisions. But the city failed to demonstrate that it undertook a study which addressed the issue at the heart of the case:

Contrary to the City’s contention, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified governmental immunity. While a municipality will generally be accorded qualified immunity from liability arising out of its planning decisions … , a governmental body may be liable for a planning decision when its study is “plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its plan” … . Here, the evidence presented by the City failed to establish that it undertook a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . Moskovitz v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06318, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

Pedestrian Struck from Behind Was Not Comparatively Negligent as a Matter of Law

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff pedestrian, who was struck from behind by defendant’s car, was free from comparative negligence as a matter of law and entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff was properly crossing a street and had almost reached the other side when defendant, who was making a left turn into the street plaintiff was crossing, struck plaintiff from behind. Because plaintiff could not have seen defendant’s car before she was struck, there was no possibility she was comparatively negligent:

The deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff and a nonparty witness established that prior to entering the roadway, the injured plaintiff waited for the traffic light controlling the east-west traffic on Montauk Highway to turn red, then looked to her left and right, and, seeing no cars, started to walk southbound across Montauk Highway. The testimony further established that the injured plaintiff traversed the westbound left-turn lane, and while in the eastbound lane of Montauk Highway, having almost completed crossing, was struck by the defendants’ vehicle, which had turned left from Keith Lane to proceed east on Montauk Highway. Significantly, this testimony established that, prior to the impact, Karen Kruse (hereinafter the defendant driver), started her approach to the point of impact from behind and to the right of the injured plaintiff, that is, from behind the injured plaintiff’s right shoulder and out of her view. The defendant driver conceded in her deposition testimony that she did not see the injured plaintiff prior to impact, despite the fact, established by her own testimony, that the injured plaintiff was generally in front of her prior to the impact. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs established that the defendant driver was negligent and that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative fault. Castiglione v Kruse, 2015 NY Slip Op 06306, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Failure to Construct a Concrete Pad at a Bus Stop Does Not Constitute “Affirmative Negligence” On the Part of the City—Written Notice Requirement Applied

The Second Department determined the city’s failure to install a concrete pad for a bus stop was not the kind of “affirmative negligence” for which prior written notice of a defect is not required.

“Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which a plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … . The two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement are where the defect or hazard results from an “affirmative act of negligence” by the municipality, or a special use by the municipality that conferred a special benefit from it … . Only when one of these exceptions applies is the written notice requirement obviated … .

The plaintiff’s contention that the City failed to install a concrete bus pad, resulting in the formation of a physical defect in the roadway which caused her to fall, does not amount to an “affirmative act of negligence.” Thus, the plaintiff’s claim requires prior written notice pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) … . Rodriguez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06324, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

With Regard to the Suit Against the Perpetrator, Perpetrator’s Criminal Conviction Barred Relitigation in the Wrongful Death Case Stemming from a Stabbing Outside Defendant Bar/With Regard to the Suit Against Defendant Bar, Questions of Fact Raised About the Foreseeability of the Attack, the Proximate Cause of the Injury, and the Adequacy of Defendant Bar’s Security Measures

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s decedent’s estate was entitled to summary judgment against the defendant, Taylor, who stabbed plaintiff’s decedent outside a bar both had just left. Taylor had pled guilty to manslaughter and waived the justification defense. Taylor was therefore collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue in the civil proceeding. Questions of fact about the foreseeability of the stabbing, the proximate cause of the incident and the adequacy of security precluded summary judgment re: the liability of the bar defendants. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court should have overlooked the fact that the depositions submitted in motion practice were unsigned (a basis for Supreme Court’s denial of requested relief). No party raised the “unsigned deposition” issue and it amounted to only a minor irregularity:

“Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from relitigating the issue of liability” … . “The doctrine applies whether the conviction results from a plea or a trial” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” * * *

“A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties” … . “To establish foreseeability, there is no requirement that the past experience of criminal activity be of the same type as that to which the plaintiff was subjected, but the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on prior occurrences of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” … . Here, the plaintiff met her prima facie burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law against [the bar defendants]. In opposition, the [bar defendants] raised a triable issue of fact on behalf … as to the issue of foreseeability, whether the decedent’s own conduct preceding the stabbing was a proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the … security measures were adequate … . Hartman v Milbel Enters., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06314, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Road Washout Was Due to a Highway Design Issue for Which Adequate Remedial Planning Had Been Made—The Washout Was Not, Therefore, Caused by a Highway Maintenance Deficiency to Which the Negligence Standard Applies—State Entitled to Qualified Immunity Re: a Vehicle Accident Caused by a Sinkhole

The Third Department determined the maintenance and construction of a culvert, around which the road repeatedly washed out, was a highway design issue, for which the state was protected by qualified immunity, not a highway maintenance issue, for which a negligence standard applies. Claimant was injured when his vehicle went into a sinkhole near the culvert.

Municipalities unquestionably have a duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition … . With respect to highway safety and design, however, defendant is “accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Here, the gravamen of the claim is that the 9-foot-high, 15-foot-wide oval culvert that carried the Spuytenduiveil Creek underneath Route 8 was too small and should have been replaced. Plaintiff maintains that this condition presented a maintenance and repair issue that defendant was required to address in its proprietary capacity for which basic negligence and not sovereign immunity principles apply … . * * *

In order to successfully invoke the qualified immunity defense, defendant had the burden of demonstrating that its decision with regard to the replacement of the culvert “‘was the product of a deliberative decision-making process'” … . Even with design planning issues, liability may exist where the municipality does not adequately analyze the condition or if there is no reasonable basis for its plan … . If a remedial plan is developed, “liability may result from a failure to effectuate the plan within a reasonable period of time,” but “a reasonable delay justified by design considerations [or] a legitimate claim of funding priorities would not be actionable” … .

Based upon our review of the probative evidence, we agree with the Court of Claims that the replacement of the culvert presented a design and not a maintenance issue and that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Evans v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06288, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

, ,

General Obligations Law Prohibition of Indemnification Agreements Which Exempt a Lessor from Its Own Negligence Does Not Apply to a Commercial Lease Negotiated at Arm’s Length Between Sophisticated Parties With an Insurance Procurement Requirement

The Second Department determined the lessor of a shopping center, Montauk Properties, under the terms of its lease with a supermarket, Gambar Food, was entitled to indemnification re: plaintiff’s slip and fall on a sidewalk in front of the supermarket.  Although the terms of the lease exempted the lessor from liability for its own negligence, which is a violation of General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-321, GOL 5-231 does not apply to a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated parties with an insurance procurement requirement:

The lease between Montauk Properties and Gambar Food requires Gambar Food to indemnify Montauk Properties “for any matter or thing growing out of the occupation of the demised premises or of the streets, sidewalks or vaults adjacent thereto.” The plaintiff’s accident falls within the scope of this indemnification provision …, which, under its broadly drawn language, obligates Gambar Food to indemnify Montauk Properties for its own negligence. Although General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides that an agreement that purports to exempt a lessor from its own negligence is void and unenforceable, the subject indemnification provision is not rendered unenforceable by this statute. “[W]here, as here, the liability is to a third party, General Obligations Law § 5-321 does not preclude enforcement of an indemnification provision in a commercial lease negotiated at arm’s length between two sophisticated parties when coupled with an insurance procurement requirement” … . Campisi v Gambar Food Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06205, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

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