You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Causes of Action Against City Alleging Negligence In Responding to a 911 Call and In Preparing for and Responding to a Snow Storm Which Blocked Roads Should Have Been Dismissed—Only Governmental Functions Were Involved and there Was No Special Relationship between the City and Plaintiffs’ Decedent

The Second Department determined the complaint against the city should have been dismissed under the doctrine of governmental immunity.  Plaintiffs alleged the city was negligent in responding to a 911 call for an ambulance and was negligent in preparing for and responding to a snow storm (which blocked roads). Because the relevant acts or omissions related to government functions, and because no special relationship existed between the city and plaintiffs’ decedent, the city was immune from suit. The Second Department provided a good explanation of the relevant law:

As a general rule, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance services” … . When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality’s conduct is proprietary in nature, the municipality is subject to suit under the ordinary rules of negligence applicable to nongovernmental parties … . If it is determined that a municipality was exercising a governmental function, the municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . “A special duty’ is a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff,’ and is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity'” … . Insofar as relevant here, to establish a special relationship against a municipality which was exercising a governmental function, a plaintiff must show: “(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” … . * * *

A municipal emergency response system is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function … . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show knowledge by the defendants that inaction would lead to harm, or that there was any justifiable reliance on any promise made by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants and, therefore, the complaint does not state a viable cause of action against the defendants based upon their alleged negligence in responding to the 911 call … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging that the defendants failed to prepare for, and respond to, the snowstorm. A municipality is obligated to maintain the streets and highways within its jurisdiction in a reasonably safe condition for travel … . A municipality will be deemed to have been engaged in a governmental function when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers … . Under the circumstances presented here, the defendants’ snow removal operation on the public streets was a traditionally governmental function, rather than a proprietary function … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege in their complaint the existence of a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants as to the defendants’ snow removal function … . Cockburn v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05146, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiffs’ Injuries Should Have Been Determined as a Matter of Law—Complaint Against Non-Negligent Driver (Whose Car Was Pushed into the Pedestrian-Plaintiffs by the Negligent-Driver’s Car) Should Have Been Dismissed

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department found that the proximate cause of the accident should have been determined as a matter of law and the complaint against the non-negligent driver should have been dismissed.  The negligent driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by attempting to make a left turn and crossing the lane in which the non-negligent driver was travelling.  The non-negligent driver ‘s car collided with negligent driver’s car and then struck plaintiffs (pedestrians).  Here it was clear that the negligent-driver’s actions were the sole proximate of the plaintiffs’ injury as a matter of law:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . “There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” …, and “[g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . “However, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … . Velez v Mandato, 2015 NY Slip Op 05174, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Question of Fact About Sequence of Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the middle driver in a three-car rear-end collision was negligent. Although the middle-car driver alleged she was struck from behind and pushed into the lead car, the third-car driver alleged the middle car struck the lead car before he struck the middle car:

Supreme Court erred in granting the motions of the plaintiff [lead car driver] and [the middle-car driver] for summary judgment. Based on the plaintiff’s account of the accident, those movants established, prima facie, their freedom from comparative fault and that [third-car driver] was negligent based on the presumption of negligence that arises from a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle … . However, [third-car driver’s] affidavit, which recited that his vehicle only struck the [middle] vehicle after the [middle] vehicle had already collided with the lead vehicle, raised triable issues of fact as to the sequence of the collisions, whether [the middle-car driver] was at fault, and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries …. . Gavrilova v Stark, 2015 NY Slip Op 05153, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, ,

Indemnification Clause in Lease/Alteration Agreements Unenforceable—No Exception for Lessor’s Negligence

The Second Department determined an indemnification clause in lease/alteration agreements was unenforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions and because it did not make exceptions for the lessor’s negligence (General Obligations Law 5-321):

Broad indemnification provisions … which are not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, and which fail to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, are unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321 where [the relevant agreements] were not negotiated at arm’s length by two sophisticated business entities… . Nolasco v Soho Plaza Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 05164, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Liability for a Defective or Dangerous Condition on Real Property Must Be Predicated Upon Ownership, Occupancy, Control, or Special Use of the Property—Here Defendant Demonstrated None of Those Factors Applied

The Second Department, finding that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case was properly granted, noted that in order for a defendant to be liable for a dangerous or defective condition on real property the liability must be predicated “upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property …”.  Here no such factors were demonstrated (defendant denied the allegation that it acted as the property manager).  Reynolds v Avon Grove Props., 2015 NY Slip Op 05169, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

,

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to the administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) should have been granted.  Plaintiff amended the bill of particulars to allege she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (stemming from the underlying car accident). Plaintiff placed her mental condition in issue, and there was no showing the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful:

Where the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the party may be required to submit to a medical examination … . However, a plaintiff who places his or her physical or mental condition in controversy will not be required to undergo an examination or objective testing procedure which is invasive, painful, or presents the possibility of danger to life or health … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff’s mental condition was put into controversy by her service of the bill of particulars denominated a second supplemental bill of particulars, in which she alleged that she has post-traumatic stress disorder that was caused by the accident. In support of their motion, the defendants established, through the affidavit of a psychologist, that the MMPI-2 is a conventionally accepted noninvasive test utilized for the assessment of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to establish that subjecting herself to the MMPI-2 would be invasive or harmful to her health … . Peculic v Sawicki, 2015 NY Slip Op 05168, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

, , ,

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Gave Rise to a Claim Under General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a

The First Department, recalling and vacating its decision and order dated March 3, 2015, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-firefighter’s action based upon General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a was properly denied. The action alleged the city failed to provide firefighters with personal ropes and, as a result, firefighters were forced to jump from windows without ropes (resulting in injury and death). Labor Law 27-a requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards. A question of fact was raised whether the failure to issue personal ropes resulted from the city’s discretionary decision-making, and therefore is not subject to government-function immunity:

The motion court properly declined to dismiss the portion of plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law (GML) § 205-a claims predicated on an alleged violation of Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1). The City unavailingly contends that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) cannot provide a valid predicate for any General Municipal Law § 205-a claim. However, the statute, known as the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA), which imposes a general duty on an employer to provide employees with “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees” (Labor Law § 27-a[3][a][1]), is sufficient since it is “a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Moreover, the City failed to “show that it did not negligently violate any relevant government provision or that, if it did, the violation did not directly or indirectly cause plaintiff’s injuries” … . There is evidence, including testimony and an investigative report, that the failure to issue personal ropes to the firefighters contributed to the injuries and deaths suffered when the firefighters jumped from windows using either no safety devices or a single rope that had been independently purchased by one of the firefighters. The City is also not entitled to dismissal of these claims pursuant to governmental function immunity, since the evidence concerning the removal of existing personal ropes in 2000, and the failure to provide new ropes in the period of more than four years from then until the fire giving rise to these claims, raises issues of fact concerning whether the absence of ropes “actually resulted from discretionary decision-making — i.e., the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” … . Stolowski v 234 E. 178th St. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05099, 1st Dept 6-16-15

 

, , ,

CPLR 214-c, Which Starts the Statute of Limitations Upon Discovery of the Injury, Applies Only to Toxic Torts—The Statute Does Not Apply to an Action Seeking Damages for the Allegedly Negligent Approval (by the Town) of a Defective Septic System

Plaintiffs sought replacement-cost damages for a defective septic system, alleging the town negligently approved the system prior to plaintiffs’ purchase of the property. Although the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had passed, the plaintiffs argued that CPLR 214-c applied. CPLR 214-c applies to latent defects and the statute starts running upon discovery of the injury.  The Fourth Department determined CPLR 214-c did not apply, noting that the Court of Appeals has held the statute applies only to injury from “toxic torts:”

CPLR 214-c (1) provides that “the three-year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property must be commenced shall be computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” … .

Here, plaintiffs do not seek “damages for personal injury or injury to property” (CPLR 214-c [1]); rather, they seek to be compensated for the cost of replacing an allegedly defective septic system. Thus, section 214-c is inapplicable to this action … . Moreover, the Court of Appeals, in interpreting section 214-c, has made clear that it applies only to toxic torts …, and plaintiffs’ claims have nothing do to with toxic substances. Instead, plaintiffs merely allege that the septic system was defective and that defendants failed to identify the defects during their inspections. We thus conclude that the court properly determined that the causes of action against the moving defendants are time-barred. Clendenin v Town of Milo, 2015 NY Slip Op 04976, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

The Private Right of Action Afforded to Patients in “Residential Health Care Facilities” Pursuant to Public Health Law 2801-d Does Not Apply to Residents of a Group Home for the Developmentally Disabled

Plaintiff’s brother, Brian, is developmentally disabled and resided in a group home operated by the defendant.  Plaintiff alleged her brother was injured as a result of the negligence of defendant’s employees and brought suit under Public Health Law 2801-d, which allows a private right of action by patients against “residential health care facilities.”  The Fourth Department determined the group home was not a “residential health care facility” within the meaning of the Public Health Law 2801-d and, therefore, the causes of action based on that statute should have been dismissed:

In contrast to a hospital or nursing home, the group home owned and operated by defendant is governed by the Mental Hygiene Law and regulated by the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), and operates pursuant to a certificate issued by the Commissioner of OPWDD (see Mental Hygiene Law article 16; 14 NYCRR part 686; see also Mental Hygiene Law § 13.07). The group home is classified as an “individualized residential alternative” community residence, defined as “a facility providing room, board, and individualized protective oversight” for “persons who are developmentally disabled and who, in addition to these basic requirements, need supportive interpersonal relationships, supervision, and training assistance in the activities of daily living” (14 NYCRR 686.99 [l] [2] [iii]). Under the plain language of the regulations governing it, the group home does not serve “principally” as a facility “for the rendering of health-related service” governed by Public Health Law article 28 (§ 2800). Burkhart v People, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04974, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Not Competent When Release Was Signed/Statute of Limitations Tolled by Plaintiff’s Mental Disability

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly concluded the release signed by the plaintiff was not enforceable, because the plaintiff was not competent at the time it was signed, and the statute of limitations was tolled by plaintiff’s mental disability. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury when he was struck by a car in 1991. A few months later plaintiff signed a release provided by an insurance adjuster in return for $5000.  The case languished for years and Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case in 2014. The court explained the relevant law:

With respect to the release signed by plaintiff, “the burden of proving incompetence rests upon the party asserting incapacity to enter into an agreement [and], to prevail, plaintiff was required to establish that [his] ‘mind was so affected as to render [him] wholly and absolutely incompetent to comprehend and understand the nature of the transaction'” … . The incapacity must be shown to exist at the time the pertinent document was executed … . Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the toll for “insanity” provided by CPLR 208 is narrowly interpreted, the concept of insanity is “equated with unsoundness of mind” … and encompasses “only those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . The mental incapacity must exist at or be caused by the accident and continue during the relevant time … . Lynch v Carlozzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04893, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

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