You are here: / Negligence
,

Evidence of Post-Accident Elevator-Repairs Not Discoverable

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who was injured in an elevator accident, was not entitled to the post-accident elevator-repair records. Such records are only discoverable if there is a question about whether a defendant actually maintains or has control over an instrumentality, not the case here:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof” … . “[E]vidence of subsequent repairs is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue … .

Here, the plaintiff moved to compel production of post-accident repair records generated during the three-year period between the date of the plaintiff’s accident and the date of the inspection of the subject elevator by the plaintiff’s expert. Yet it is undisputed that the defendant exercised maintenance and control over the elevator. Graham v Kone, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06111, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)

In finding Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the Second Department explained the relevant criteria, noting it is most important that the municipality have timely knowledge of the actual facts underlying the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits” … . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance” … . The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . Matter of Barrett v Village of Wappingers Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 06138, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Escaped Calf Furnished the Condition or Occasion for Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Presence in the Road When She Was Struck, But Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Being in the Road

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. A calf escaped from defendant farm. Plaintiff’s decedent stopped her car and got out to aid the calf.  Both plaintiff’s decedent and the calf were struck by a car when they were in the road, although there was no evidence decedent stopped her car because the calf blocked the road. The Fourth Department held that the escape of the calf did not “cause” the decedent to be in the road. Rather the escape of the calf furnished the condition or occasion for decedent to be in the road:

Although “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal . . . is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” …, “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … . Here, in support of its motion, Drumm Farm established that any negligence on its part in allowing the calf to escape merely “created the opportunity for plaintiff to be standing [in the roadway], [but] it did not cause [her] to stand” there … . “In short, the [alleged] negligence of [Drumm Farm] merely furnished the occasion for an unrelated act to cause injuries not ordinarily anticipated” … . Importantly, plaintiff does not contend, and did not submit any evidence that would establish, that the calf’s presence in the road blocked decedent’s ability to travel in the southbound lane or otherwise forced decedent to stop her vehicle. Thus, Drumm Farm established as a matter of law that its “alleged negligent act, at most, caused the [calf to wander] out of the field, which was not the immediate cause of the accident” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Hain v Jamison, 2015 NY Slip Op 06074, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, , , , ,

Claims Against the State Based Upon Recurrent Flooding Properly In Supreme Court as Opposed to the Court of Claims/Criteria for Inverse Condemnation of Property Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that an action against the state alleging recurrent flooding of plaintiffs’ property was properly in Supreme Court, despite the statutory requirement that claims against the state for monetary damages be brought in the Court of Claims. The Fourth Department held that the state did not demonstrate that the essential nature of the claim was to recover money. The Fourth Department further determined that the cause of action for inverse condemnation was properly dismissed, explaining the criteria:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing all claims for money damages. Although defendant is correct that ” claims that are primarily against the State for damages must be brought in the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court may consider a claim for injunctive relief as long as the claim is not primarily for damages’ ” (… see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Here, defendant failed to establish in support of its cross motion that the essential nature of the causes of action for negligence, continuing nuisance, and continuing trespass is to recover money damages, and thus the court properly declined to grant summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

We agree, however, with the further contention of defendant that the court erred in denying that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for inverse condemnation, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That cause of action alleged that the flooding intruded onto plaintiffs’ properties and interfered with their property rights to such an extent that it constituted “a constitutional taking requiring [defendant] to purchase the properties from plaintiffs.” It is well settled that such a “taking can consist of either a permanent ouster of the owner, or a permanent interference with the owner’s physical use, possession, and enjoyment of the property, by one having condemnation powers” … . “In order to constitute a permanent ouster, defendant[‘s] conduct must constitute a permanent physical occupation of plaintiff’s property amounting to exercise of dominion and control thereof’ ” … .

Here, defendant met its burden on its cross motion with respect to the cause of action for inverse condemnation by establishing as a matter of law that any interference with plaintiffs’ property rights was not sufficiently permanent to constitute a de facto taking … . Greece Ridge, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06072, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, ,

Parking Lot Not “Suitable” for Recreational Use Pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103—Statutory Assumption of Risk Re: Riding a Bicycle in the Parking Lot Not Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a “recreational use” affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s son was injured when his bicycle struck a depressed area in defendant’s parking lot. Defendant sought to allege plaintiff’s son assumed the risk of injury because the parking lot was covered by the recreational use statute, General Obligations Law 9-103. The Fourth Department, finding that the parking lot was not “suitable” for recreational use, explained the relevant analytical criteria:

We conclude that the court properly determined that defendant’s proposed amendment patently lacks merit inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply to the facts of this case as a matter of law. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s son was engaged in one of the recreational activities enumerated in section 9-103, i.e., bicycle riding, when he was injured. To establish applicability of the statute, however, defendant was also required to show that its property “was suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff[‘s son] was participating when the accident occurred” … . “Whether a parcel of land is suitable and the immunity [of the recreational use statute] available is a question of statutory interpretation, and is, therefore, a question of law for the Court” … . Suitability is established by showing that the subject property is ” (1) physically conducive to the activity at issue, and (2) of a type that is appropriate for public use in pursuing that activity as recreation’ ” … . “A substantial indicator that the property is physically conducive to the particular activity is whether recreationists have used the property for that activity in the past; such past use by participants in the [activity] manifests the fact that the property is physically conducive to it” … . Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence that the property had been used in the past by “recreationists” for bicycle riding. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the subject property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has made clear that recreational use immunity should apply only to property that “the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities” … . Here, defendant failed to establish that its employee parking lot comes within the purview of that standard. Sasso v WCA Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06066, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, , ,

In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars

The Third Department determined evidence of a theory of liability that was not explicitly included in the pleadings and bill of particulars was not error. The theory was implicit in the pleadings and the defendants could not have been surprised by the related evidence. The court noted it would have been better had the plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the evidence:

Generally, a party is limited to presenting evidence at trial that supports a cause of action or theory of recovery that was either pleaded in the complaint or asserted in the bill of particulars … . However, evidence concerning a specific theory or injury not mentioned in the bill of particulars may nonetheless avoid exclusion where such proof necessarily flows from the information conveyed in the pleadings and where the defendants should have been aware of the basis thereof… .

The contested theory of liability in this case is based on the allegedly erroneous interpretation of plaintiff’s February CT scan by Beatty (hereinafter referred to as the Beatty theory). It is worth noting that, because the complaint and bills of particulars do not contain an express articulation of the Beatty theory, the better practice certainly would have been for plaintiff to seek leave to amend his pleadings in advance of trial or at least have moved to conform the pleadings to the proof after the trial was underway. However, we nonetheless find that Supreme Court’s determinations allowing plaintiff to advance the Beatty theory at trial, including permitting plaintiff’s expert to offer testimony on the theory, do not constitute reversible error. In our view, the complaint— * * * which reference[s] the February CT scan as a basis for a departure from accepted medical practice — [was] sufficient to notify defendants of the Beatty theory and, as such, permit that theory of liability to be advanced at trial without prejudice. Simply put, we are unpersuaded by defendants’ position that they were not aware of the Beatty theory as a basis for a potential finding of medical malpractice. Boyer v Kamthan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05983, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Defendant Should Have Been Awarded Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Fact that Defendant’s Vehicle Was Double-Parked Was Not the Cause of the Accident

Reversing Supreme Court, the First Department determined the fact that defendant’s (Pepsi’s) vehicle was double-parked did not warrant denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion. The fact that the vehicle was double-parked was merely the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, not the cause. Plaintiff’s claim that sunlight temporarily blinded him did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for his striking the rear of the Pepsi vehicle:

In this rear-end collision case, even assuming that the Pepsi vehicle, hit from behind, was illegally double-parked, that fact, standing alone “does not automatically establish that such double-parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the record shows that the double-parked vehicle, given the road conditions at the time of the accident, namely, the favorable weather, the time of day, and the relatively minimal amount of traffic on the road at the time, “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes” … . Plaintiff’s proffered excuse for the accident, that sunlight temporary blinded the driver of the rear vehicle, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision … . Barry v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06034, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined an elevator maintenance company (The Elevator Man) did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when the elevator free-fell three stories in September 2010. The maintenance contract with the elevator maintenance company had been cancelled for non-payment, but the company had subsequently agreed to do, and had done, emergency repairs when called to do so. Although there was evidence the elevator maintenance company was negligent re: repairs done in early 2010, applying the “Espinal” criteria, the First Department held there was no evidence the maintenance company “launched an instrument of harm,” the only available theory of liability:

If the issue were limited to whether The Elevator Man was negligent, a question of fact would preclude summary judgment. However, the issue is not that simple.

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]).

Where a contractor has entered into a contract to render services, it may only be held to have assumed a duty of care to nonparties to the contract in three situations:

“(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal citations omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff relies on the inspection performed by The Elevator Man on January 14, 2010 in which it gave the elevator a “Satisfactory” rating, despite a “Cease Use” violation that had been issued on November 1, 2009, The Elevator Man was subject to the maintenance contract then in effect. To the extent plaintiff argues that The Elevator Man was negligent in the work it performed on May 26, 2010, any duty The Elevator Man had toward him could not be based on the terminated 2009 maintenance agreement; nevertheless, The Elevator Man continued to be subject to a more limited contract with the manager of the parking facility, in which it agreed to respond to emergency calls, upon payment of an agreed fee.

We find the rule set forth in Espinal to apply here. It is conceded that of the three possibilities listed in Espinal, only the first could provide a basis for liability to plaintiff: “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, launches a force or instrument of harm'” (id. at 140). However, even accepting for purposes of this analysis that The Elevator Man negligently inspected the elevator on January 14, 2010 and negligently failed to correctly assess the condition of the elevator and necessary repair on May 26, 2010, it cannot be said to have launched a force or instrument of harm. That is, in failing to correctly inspect or repair the elevator, it did not create or exacerbate an unsafe condition. Medinas v MILT Holdings LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06044, 1st Dept 7-9-15

 

,

Criteria for Negligent Care of a Child by a Nonparent Explained—Effect on Proof Requirements of Amnesia Suffered by the Injured Party Noted

In concluding summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper, the Second Department explained the criteria for negligent care of a child by a nonparent and noted the effect of amnesia suffered by the injured party on the plaintiff’s proof requirements:

“A person, other than a parent, who undertakes to control, care for, or supervise an infant, is required to use reasonable care to protect the infant over whom he or she has assumed temporary custody or control. Such a person may be liable for any injury sustained by the infant which was proximately caused by his or her negligence. While a person caring for entrusted children is not cast in the role of an insurer, such an individual is obliged to provide adequate supervision and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately resulting from the negligent failure to do so” … . Here, in support of her motion for summary judgment, the defendant Joanne Williams submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that under the circumstances, she adequately supervised the infant plaintiff … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiffs contend that the infant plaintiff suffered from amnesia as a result of the subject accident and, thus, they are not held to as high of a degree of proof …, the plaintiffs are not relieved of the obligation to provide some proof from which negligence can reasonably be inferred … . Alotta v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 05899, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the respondents should not have been granted.  Plaintiffs had raised a question of fact by producing circumstantial evidence that the respondents, not New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employees, were responsible for the placement of a “shoe paddle” in a subway car which fell and injured plaintiff. The court explained the criteria for circumstantial evidence in this context:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff’s proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant’s negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff’s] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote’ or technical’ to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” … .

Here, the respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering the testimony of two of their employees denying that they placed the shoe paddle in the subject door. In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the testimony from NYCTA employees, including the testimony of the cleaner of the subject train, that no NYCTA employee placed the shoe paddle in the door, and that the respondents were the only contractors present at the site during the relevant time period. The plaintiffs also submitted NYCTA records showing that as of 11:40 p.m., about three hours prior to the incident, all shoe paddles were in their holders and all doors were free and moving properly. Thus, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether this circumstantial evidence gives rise to a rational inference that it was more likely or more reasonable that an employee of the respondents placed the shoe paddle in the subject door than an NYCTA employee … . Hernandez v Alstom Transp., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05911, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

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