You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE DAY CARE PROVIDER TESTIFIED HER BACK WAS TURNED WHEN INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE SLIDE; THE DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cay-care-center defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the negligent-supervision cause of action should not have been granted. The complaint alleged infant plaintiff fell off a slide:

Day care providers are under a duty to adequately supervise the children in their charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to a lack of adequate supervision … . “In general, the duty of a day care/preschool provider is to supervise the children in its care with the same degree of care as a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise in comparable circumstances” … . Generally, whether supervision was adequate and whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of a child’s injury are questions of fact … .

Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they provided adequate supervision to the plaintiff or that a lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants submitted, among other things, an expert affidavit from a child supervision expert and a transcript of the deposition testimony of the care provider present at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. The care provider testified that she was trained to always keep the children in her sight while they are in the gym. Moreover, the defendants’ expert emphasized that a teacher’s position should allow the teacher to clearly see the entire play area and the children. However, despite the care provider’s admitted familiarity with these practices, she testified that she was occupied tying another child’s shoe with her back turned when the plaintiff was on the playset with her brother and that she did not see the plaintiff until the plaintiff was on the ground. The defendants thereby failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to negligent supervision … . D.O. v Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01797, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: A day-care provider is obligated to keep the play area and the children in sight at all times. Here the day-care provider had turned her back when infant plaintiff fell off the slide. That raised a question of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant on the negligent-supervision cause of action.

 

, , ,

A HOSPITAL HAS A DUTY TO RETAIN AN INTOXICATED PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN ADMITTED INVOLUNTARILY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IF THE PATIENT IS INCAPACITATED TO A DEGREE THERE WAS A LIKELIHOOD OF HARM TO THE PATIENT OR OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital breached its duty to retain the decedent for emergency treatment because decedent was incapacitated by alcohol to a degree there was a likelihood of harm to decedent or others:

A hospital does not owe an intoxicated patient, who went to the hospital voluntarily, a duty to prevent that patient from leaving the hospital against medical advice even when that patient has been admitted to the hospital for medical treatment … . By contrast, however, the decedent here was admitted involuntarily (see Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 [e]). Defendant therefore had a duty to retain decedent for emergency treatment if decedent was incapacitated by alcohol or substances to such a degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, as those terms are defined under Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 … .

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that it did not breach its duty to ensure that decedent was no longer incapacitated to the degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact. Plaintiff’s expert opined that, under the circumstances and “especially in such proximity to the events that occurred in the hospital in the hours prior to discharge,” it was a breach of the standard of care to allow decedent to be discharged … . Guadagno v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01698, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: A hospital has a duty to retain an intoxicated patient who has been admitted involuntarily if the patient is incapacitated to a degree there is a likelihood of harm to the patient or others. That duty is not triggered by an intoxicated patient who went to the hospital voluntarily.

 

,

ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE TENANT WHO SET FIRE TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING, INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE TENANT THREATENED “TO KILL EVERYONE” IN THE BUILDING AND WAS SEEN CARRYING GASOLINE TANKS INTO THE BUILDING; THE DEFENDANT LANDLORDS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT THE TENANT FROM STARTING THE FIRE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord defendants did not have a duty to investigate, monitor, or control a tenant who set fire to the five-story building injuring the plaintiff-tenants:

One of the plaintiffs testified that he made several complaints to defendants concerning the tenant’s behavior before the incident. Specifically, he reported to defendants that the tenant threatened “to kill everyone” in the building and was seen carrying gasoline tanks into the building. The motion court found that this testimony “raise[d] issues of fact as to whether defendants failed to take minimal measures to investigate the presence of gasoline in the apartment, and to protect the occupants from the risk of fire arising out of the presence of gasoline.”

The motion court erred in applying the “minimal precaution” standard set forth in negligent security cases because the assailant here was not a third-party nontenant … . Rather, he was a tenant in the building who was lawfully permitted to be there at the time of the fire. The appropriate test is, therefore, whether defendants lacked the “authority, ability, and opportunity to control” the tenant’s actions such that they had a duty to prevent him from starting the fire …  . Applying that standard to the facts here, defendants had no authority or ability to evict the tenant under the lease or New York law prior to the fire … . Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish a clear basis under New York law for defendants to investigate, monitor, or control the tenant which could have prevented him from setting the fire … . Accordingly, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of their inability to prevent the tenant from starting the fire that caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Molina v Appula Mgt. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01603 First Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: The negligent-security-minimal-precaution standard of care for landlords applies only to security re: the actions of non-tenants. Here it was a tenant who set fire to the apartment building and injured other tenants. The appropriate test for the landlord’s duty re: a tenant’s actions is whether the landlord has the authority, ability, and opportunity to control the tenant’s actions under the lease or New York law, which was not the case here.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPUTY DID NOT SOUND HER AIR HORN BEFORE THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ VEHICLE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPUTY TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION; THEREFORE THE COUNTY DEMONSTRATED THE DEPUTY DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissent, determined the county was entitled to summary judgment in this negligence suit stemming from an intersection accident involving a sheriff’s deputy (Wong) who was responding to an emergency call. Although the court found that Wong did not sound her air horn prior to the collision with plaintiffs’ (Granaths’) car, the evidence demonstrated Wong did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others:

It is undisputed that, before proceeding through the intersection, Deputy Fong slowed down, came to a complete stop at least once, observed northbound traffic, waited for that traffic to yield to her, and turned on her overheard lights. The Granaths contend that a jury could nonetheless find that Deputy Fong exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others by failing to activate her air horn or siren; declining to call in a “Code 77” as required by MCSD [sheriff’s department] policy; and proceeding into the intersection despite having an obstructed view of southbound traffic.

We agree with the Appellate Division that defendants met their initial burden on their summary judgment motion and that, in opposition, the Granaths failed to raise a material triable issue of fact. Even assuming Deputy Fong failed to activate her air horn or siren, call in a “Code 77,” or observe southbound traffic—either because her view was obstructed or she neglected to look to her right—taken together with the actions she undisputably did take—slowing down, stopping, activating her emergency lights and proceeding only once she observed northbound traffic yield to her—we cannot conclude that Deputy Fong, with “conscious indifference to the outcome,” “reckless[ly] disregard[ed] . . . a highly probable risk of harm” … . Granath v Monroe County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01586, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the meaning of “reckless disregard for the safety of others” in the context of an intersection traffic accident involving a sheriff’s deputy responding to an emergency call.

 

, , ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WITH TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The medical records provided the defendant hospital with sufficient timely notice of the cause of action:

“Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury” … . “Where the alleged malpractice is apparent from an independent review of the medical records, those records constitute ‘actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim'” … .

Here, in support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, medical records and an affidavit of a physician who reviewed the records and concluded that there had been a departure from accepted medical practice … . Inasmuch as the medical records, upon independent review, suggested injury attributable to medical malpractice, the medical records provided the defendant with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Kazeem v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Queens Hosp. Center), 2026 NY Slip Op 01497, Second Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: The medical records themselves can be deemed to have provided a defendant hospital with timely notice of the facts underlying a medical malpractice action such that an application for leave to file a late notice of claim should be granted.

 

, , ,

HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION; PLAINTIFF PASSENGER HAD SUED DECEDENT DRIVER AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY; THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DECEDENT DRIVER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEDENT DRIVER; THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY DID NOT GIVE THE INTERESTED PARTIES THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DRIVER’S DEATH; AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE DECEDENT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the attorneys for the decedent driver did not have the authority to move to dismiss plaintiff-passenger’s action against the decedent because the decedent’s death during the pendency of the action divested the court of jurisdiction, (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon the driver’s death should not have been granted because defendant did not notify the parties with an interest in decedent’s estate of the motion, and (3) plaintiff-passenger’s cross-motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the driver’s estate should not have been granted because plaintiff did not notify parties interested in the estate of the cross-motion and did not otherwise follow the procedures for such an appointment:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party … . * * *

“CPLR 1021 defines the procedural mechanisms for seeking a substitution of successor or representative parties, and for the dismissal of actions where substitutions are not timely sought” … . CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made.” Further, “a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that she provided notice of her cross-motions to persons interested in [the] estate … . Moreover, the plaintiff “failed to demonstrate the steps [she] had taken to secure the appointment of a personal representative in the appropriate Surrogate’s Court or that resort to the appropriate Surrogate’s Court was otherwise unfeasible . . . and otherwise failed to adequately demonstrate why the appointment of a temporary administrator was needed to avoid undue delay and prejudice” … . Ford v Luckain, 2026 NY Slip Op 01493, Second Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the procedures which must be followed when a party in a pending traffic-accident case dies, divesting the court of jurisdiction and curtailing the authority of the decedent’s attorneys to act on decedent’s behalf.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS A CO-PILOT OF A HELICOPTER USED TO PROVIDE AN AERIAL PLATFORM FOR WORK ON POWER LINES; THE HELICOPTER STRUCK A POWER LINE AND PLAINTIFF JUMPED FROM THE HELICOPTER FROM A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) STRICT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA); THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER THE FEDERAL STANDARD OF CARE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) six causes of action were preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) but the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed because the federal standard of care can be applied to them. Plaintiff was the co-pilot of a helicopter which was being used to provide an aerial platform for work on power lines. The helicopter struck a power line and plaintiff jumped out of the helicopter from a height of 75 feet:

Under the federal rules, “[t]he pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft” (14 CFR 91.3[a] …). Various federal courts have held that the pilot thereby has the “sole responsibility to determine whether it is safe or unsafe to undertake the proposed flight” … . * * *

Additionally, under the federal rules, “[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another” (14 CFR 91.13[a]). This rule is “[c]entral” to the FAA’s overarching standard of care …. Common-law negligence cases require a more stringent standard of care, “that of a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances” … . Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law negligence standard … , while Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) “subject contractors and owners to absolute strict liability” … . The standards of care underlying the four sources of liability alleged by the plaintiff—i.e., liability for common-law negligence and under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6)—thereby conflict with, and are preempted by, the federal recklessness standard. …

Where applicable, the effect of preemption of a state standard of care is not to preclude recovery or “to deprive Plaintiffs of their state remedies, but rather, to substitute a federal standard of care for New York’s reasonably-prudent-person standard” … . Fabia v Power Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 01489, Second Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: Here, although the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) preempted the strict liability Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action in this helicopter-accident case, the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed because the federal standard of care can be applied to them.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the issues raised by preemption of state Labor Law and negligence claims stemming from a helicopter accident by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA).

 

,

THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGERS IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF DRIVER CREATED A “PECUNIARY” CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN PLAINTIFF DRIVER AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGERS; THE ATTORNEY WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING ALL THE PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney, Gambone, should have been disqualified from representing the plaintiff driver and the plaintiff-passengers in this rear-end collision case. The defendant asserted a counterclaim for indemnification against plaintiff driver, which created a “pecuniary” conflict of interest between the driver and the passengers. It is not clear from the decision why Gambone was precluded from representing the passengers and well as the driver:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that Gambone’s representation of both the plaintiff driver and the passengers created a conflict of interest … . Although the passengers contend that there was no conflict of interest because the plaintiff driver, whose vehicle allegedly was struck in the rear while he was stopped at a red traffic signal, was not at fault in the happening of the accident, the pecuniary interests of the plaintiff driver conflicted with those of the passengers once the defendants asserted the counterclaim against the plaintiff driver … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants sufficiently demonstrated that Gambone should be disqualified from continuing to represent any plaintiffs in this action … . Diaz v Gomez, 2026 NY Slip Op 01487, First Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: Even though this was a rear-end collision case and it is not clear that plaintiff driver was negligent, the defendant’s counterclaim against plaintiff driver for indemnification created a “pecuniary” conflict of interest between plaintiff driver and plaintiff passengers. Therefore the attorney was disqualified from representing both plaintiff driver and plaintiff passengers. For reasons which are not provided in the decision, the attorney was disqualified from representing all of the plaintiffs.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER TO SLIP ON A STAIRWAY STEP BUT SHE TESTIFIED SHE LOOKED FOR SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO AND THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff did not know what caused her to slip on the step, she testified she “wanted something to hold on to” but there was no handrail:

Although the plaintiff testified that she did not know what caused her to slip on the step, she also testified that she “wanted to hold onto something,” but she “didn’t have anything to hold onto.” Even if the plaintiff’s fall was precipitated by a misstep, her testimony that she looked for something to hold onto, but there was nothing there, presented “an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of her injury” … . Flores v 1298 Grand, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01340, Second Dept 3-11-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s testimony that she did not know what caused her to slip on a stairway step did not warrant summary judgment in defendant’s favor. There was no handrail and plaintiff testified she “looked for something to hold onto.” Therefore a question of fact was raised about whether the absence of a handrail rendered the stairway unsafe and was a proximate cause of the fall.

​

,

THE GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY COVID-19 TOLLS OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW FOR FILING CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CAUSES OF ACTION BY 228 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the amendment of the Child Victims Act (CVA), which enlarged to window for filing otherwise time-barred actions, did not supersede the governor’s COVID-19 executive orders tolling statutes of limitations. Therefore two-year window for filing CVA actions was extended by the 228-day COVID-19 tolls and plaintiff’s action was timely:

… [T]his Court concludes that the executive orders issued by the Governor and the Legislature’s amendment of the CVA all functioned together to enlarge and enhance the period of time for survivors to commence CVA actions. This Court finds the contention of [defendants] that the CVA amendment supplanted the executive orders unpersuasive. The CVA amendment and the executive orders work in tandem to accommodate the peculiar difficulties precluding survivors of child sex abuse to come forward in pursuit of justice. The extended revival window provided survivors an opportunity to avail themselves of the CVA revival window despite restrictions by the pandemic or personal trauma. To hold otherwise would belie the very intent of the CVA, which was to permit victims additional time to bring their offenders to justice.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the executive orders issued prior to the enactment of the CVA amendment apply to toll the two-year revival window for the time the executive orders were in effect. In conjunction with the executive orders issued subsequent to the CVA amendment’s enactment, which this Court has recently held to be applicable, all of these executive orders impose an aggregate 228-day toll on the closing of the CVA revival window, making March 30, 2022, the latest date by which to commence a CVA action … . Finley v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2026 NY Slip Op 01183, Second Dept 3-4-26

 

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