You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

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

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Softball Coach’s Having Infant Plaintiff Practice Sliding on Grass Increased the Inherent Risk of the Activity Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate, in its motion for summary judgment, that the softball coach’s having infant plaintiff practice sliding on grass did not unreasonably increase the inherent risk of the activity. Therefore the school district’s motion was properly denied without any consideration of the opposing papers:

Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … . Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . ” [A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff'”… .

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant’s coach, by having her perform an infield sliding drill on the subject grass field, did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity … . Since the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion and cross motion were properly denied, and the Court need not determine the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Brown v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06204, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant

The Third Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant high school in a negligent supervision case. Plaintiff’s son, LaValley, was assaulted by another student, Breyette, after plaintiff had alerted school officials about threats of violence made by Breyette against her son. Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior for which he was suspended in middle school. LaValley was punched 37 times in the school cafeteria in close proximity to a teacher who did not intervene and who was not aware of the conflict between the two students. The Third Department noted that, in determining a summary judgment motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . Where a fellow student intentionally injures another, the duty is breached if the school had actual or constructive notice of the conduct that caused the injury such that the acts of the fellow student could have been reasonably anticipated … . The adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for the jury … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmovant …, we note that Breyette had a history of assaultive behavior, including a previous assault against LaValley in middle school that resulted in Breyette’s out-of-school suspension. There is also evidence that, within the month prior to the assault, Breyette specifically threatened violence against LaValley, and plaintiff testified that she immediately informed the high school principal about this threat. Plaintiff also testified that she brought up the conflict between LaValley and Breyette during a meeting with the principal and her son’s teachers. Although the principal acknowledged that plaintiff had informed him about the conflict and he testified that he spoke to Breyette about it, Breyette denied that the principal had spoken to him prior to the attack. The attack itself occurred in the school cafeteria, in close proximity to a teacher who had not been notified of the threat or the conflict between the two students. According to Breyette, he calmly approached LaValley, called his name to get his attention and proceeded to punch him in the head 37 times without any adult intervention. He did not stop until another student intervened. In light of this evidence, we agree with Supreme Court that factual issues exist with respect to the adequacy of defendants’ supervision and whether the lack of adequate supervision was a proximate cause of LaValley’s injuries … . LaValley v Northeastern Clinton Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06187, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

,

Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted to defendant hospital. The suit against the hospital was based upon the actions of a non-employee physician chosen by the plaintiff.  The Second Department succinctly explained the theories under which a hospital may be liable for the actions of a non-employee physician (none of which applied here):

Generally speaking, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician chosen by the patient … . Moreover, so long as the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital have merely carried out that private attending physician’s orders, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries … . These rules will not, however, shield a hospital from liability in three situations. The first is when the private physician’s orders “so greatly deviate from normal medical practice that [the hospital’s employees] should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Put another way, a hospital may be held liable when the staff follows orders despite knowing “that the doctor’s orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders” … . Second, a hospital may be held liable when its employees have committed independent acts of negligence … . Third, a hospital may be held liable for the negligence of a private, nonemployee physician on a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . Doria v Benisch, 2015 NY Slip Op 06109, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

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