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

 

, , ,

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

 

, ,

No Interlocutory Appeal Lies from a Pre-Trial Ruling on the Admissibility of Evidence Which Did Not Limit the Scope of the Issues or Theories of Liability to Be Tried

Defendant was intoxicated when her vehicle collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle.  Plaintiff, the administrator of decedent’s estate, sought to introduce expert testimony demonstrating that, based upon defendant’s blood-alcohol content six hours after the accident, she would have been visibly intoxicated and had a higher blood-alcohol content when she was served at defendant tavern.  The tavern moved to preclude the expert testimony and, after a Frye hearing, the court granted the motion.  The Third Department determined the court’s ruling on the evidentiary issue did not limit the scope of the issues or theories of liability to be tried and was not, therefore, appealable as of right or by permission. Appeal would have to wait until the trial is concluded:

It is well settled that “an order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . Supreme Court precluded plaintiff from offering an expert opinion as to “the extrapolated blood alcohol content [and] the physiological condition” of [defendant] while she was at the tavern, crediting the testimony of [the tavern’s] expert that such an opinion could not be reliably drawn from the available proof. Regardless of whether Supreme Court abused its discretion in making that determination, it was plainly an evidentiary ruling that did not “limit[] the scope of the issues or the theories of liability to be tried” … . Indeed, counsel for plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument that the preclusion of the proffered expert evidence is not fatal to his claims and that a trial will occur even if the evidence is not allowed. Appellate review thus must wait until after trial, when the relevance of the evidence and the effect of the evidentiary ruling may be properly assessed … . Hurtado v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 04912, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

, ,

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

 

, , ,

The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)

Plaintiff was injured when a piece of lumber fell off an open truck owned by the county.  Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when the debris came off the county truck and struck her in the head. The county truck was being used to transport debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. The Third Department determined that, by transporting unsecured debris in an open truck, the county had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a (1) and, therefore, the county was negligent per se.  The court interpreted Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a to mean that a prima facie case of a violation of the statute is made out by proof a load in an open truck was not covered. Once that showing is made, the owner of the truck will not be deemed to have violated the statute, despite the lack of a cover, if the owner can show the load was secure such that no cover was required. No such showing was possible here.  The court rejected the county’s argument that the emergency-related immunity conferred by the Executive Law applied here. The court noted the purpose of the Executive-Law immunity is to allow the government to make decisions during an emergency—which roads to clear first, for instance—without fear of liability, but the “emergency” immunity did not insulate the county from liability for its negligence in every context:

Executive Law § 25 (1) provides that, “[u]pon the threat or occurrence of a disaster, the chief executive of any political subdivision is hereby authorized and empowered to and shall use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of his [or her] political subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency resulting therefrom.” To be sure, this statute, which vests a political subdivision’s chief executive “with the power to respond to a local disaster or the immediate threat of a disaster, . . . reflects an awareness by the . . . Legislature that in emergency situations prompt and immediate unilateral action is necessary to preserve and protect life and property” … . Consistent with that awareness, the statute further provides, as noted previously, that “[a] political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in carrying out the provisions of this section” (Executive Law § 25 [5]).

In our view, the scope of the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 is clear. When faced with a disaster, a political subdivision’s chief executive may, for example, decide where to set up a makeshift hospital or aid station, prioritize and determine which streets to clear or allocate supplies and personnel as he or she sees fit, and such discretionary determinations, in turn, will not serve as a basis upon which to expose the political subdivision to liability. In other words, a disgruntled homeowner who is confronted with a flooded basement and is living on an impassable residential street cannot seek to hold a locality liable for damages simply because its chief executive deemed it more important to first clear a path to the local hospital or to pump out the holding cells in the local police station. That said, the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, to our analysis, grant a political subdivision carte blanche to perform a discretionary function in any manner that it sees fit — particularly in a manner that poses a danger to the traveling public. Here, a valid — and discretionary — determination may well have been made that the removal of storm debris from, among other locations, the DPW garage was a priority and, further, that transporting such debris in open containers was the most efficient and expeditious way to do so. The discretionary nature of these broad, resource-based decisions, however, did not obviate the need for defendants to comply with the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1) in terms of the actual transport of such debris. As the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, in our view, extend to the particular facts of this case, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. …

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful to operate on any public highway any open truck or trailer being utilized for the transportation of any loose substances, unless said truck or trailer has a cover, tarpaulin or other device of a type and specification . . . which completely closes in the opening on. . . said truck or trailer while said truck or trailer shall be so operated, so as to prevent the falling of any such substances therefrom. However, if the load is arranged so that no loose substance can fall from or blow out of such truck, the covering is not necessary.” * * *

In our view, in order to discharge her initial burden on her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff need only have shown that defendants failed to utilize a cover; at that point, the burden shifted to defendants to demonstrate that no statutory violation actually occurred because the load was arranged in such a manner that no cover was necessary. To hold otherwise would place a nearly insurmountable burden upon plaintiff, as the manner in which the container was loaded and the contents were arranged inevitably lies within the exclusive knowledge of defendants… . Pierce v Hickey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04914, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined questions of fact about the sequence of rear-end collisions precluded summary judgment.  DiPaoli, the driver of the front vehicle, was at a complete stop at a red light. The middle vehicle was driven by Passos, the plaintiff.  The last vehicle was an MTA bus.  From the deposition testimony, it was unclear whether the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the first vehicle before the bus struck plaintiff’s vehicle. The court explained the applicable law:

When approaching another vehicle from behind, drivers are required to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed, maintain control over the vehicle, and use reasonable care to avoid a collision, by, among other things, including maintaining a safe distance (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). Under the law applicable to rear end collisions, a presumption of negligence is established by proof that a stopped car was struck in the rear … . However, that presumption can be rebutted if the operator of the rear vehicle comes forward with an adequate non-negligent explanation for the accident … . Passos v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04916, 1st 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