You are here: / Negligence

Tractor-Trailer Veered Into Oncoming Lane Striking Bus/Emergency Doctrine Required Dismissal of Complaint Against Bus Company and Driver as a Matter of Law/Lessor of Trailer Protected Against Vicarious Liability by Graves Amendment/Negligent Entrustment Cause of Action Against Lessor of Trailer Dismissed as a Matter of Law (No Special Knowledge Use of Trailer by Lessee Would Render It Unreasonably Dangerous)

A tractor trailer suddenly veered into oncoming traffic and struck a bus owned by one of the defendants, Schoolman.  The Second Department determined the emergency doctrine precluded, as a matter of law, the suit against the bus company and the driver of the bus (Zimmardi). The court also determined the company which leased the trailer, EMH,  was protected from vicarious liability by the Graves Amendment, and was not liable, as a matter of law, under a negligent entrustment theory. The leasing company had no special knowledge of a use of the trailer by the lessee that would render the use of the trailer unreasonably dangerous:

Here, Schoolman established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaints … by demonstrating that its driver, Zimmardi, was faced with an emergency situation not of his own making when the truck suddenly veered into his lane of traffic, and that he acted reasonably in the context of that emergency … . * * *

EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the vicarious liability causes of action by demonstrating, prima facie, that the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) applied to shield it from liability for the plaintiffs’ injuries by virtue of its status as a commercial lessor of motor vehicles that was free from negligence in maintaining the subject vehicle (see Castillo v Amjack Leasing Corp., 84 AD3d 1297, 1297-1298; Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 57-58). Further, EMH established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligent entrustment causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not possess special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition … that rendered the use of the leased vehicle … unreasonably dangerous … . Pacelli v Intruck Leasing Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 04292, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, , ,

Criteria for Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Submitted) Explained—Criteria for Motion to Dismiss Based on Documentary Evidence Explained—Pleading Requirements for Legal Malpractice Explained

In finding the legal malpractice complaint properly survived motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted (question is whether plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether one has been stated, affidavits considered to remedy defects in complaint), the criteria for a motion to dismiss founded on documentary evidence (documents must utterly refute allegations in complaint), the elements of legal malpractice, and the adequacy of damages allegations in a legal malpractice complaint (cannot be conclusory or speculative but plaintiff not obligated to show it actually sustained damages) :

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see CPLR 3026…). Where a party offers evidentiary proof on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), “the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one” … . ” [A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint'” … .

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law… .

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal profession, and (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of the actual damages sustained … . A plaintiff must plead “actual[,] ascertainable damages” resulting from the attorney’s negligence … . Conclusory or speculative allegations of damages are insufficient… . However, “[a] plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages. It need only plead allegations from which damages attributable to the defendant’s malpractice might be reasonably inferred” … . Randazzo v Nelson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04299, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, ,

A Police Report of a Vehicle Accident Involving Respondent’s Employee Was Not Sufficient to Alert Respondent to the Facts Underlying Petitioner’s Claim—Petition to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the petition to file a late notice of claim was properly denied because there was no showing the respondent school district was aware of the facts underlying the claim, there was no showing the school district was not prejudiced by the two-month delay, and there was no showing of an adequate excuse for the delay.  The petitioner argued that a police report describing a vehicle accident provided notice of the facts to the school district. But the report indicated only that respondent’s employee was involved in the accident, which was not sufficient to establish respondent’s knowledge of the facts of plaintiff’s claim:

For a police accident report to serve as sufficient notice to the public corporation, the public corporation must have been “able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [employee of] the public corporation” … . A report which describes the circumstances of the accident without making a connection between the petitioner’s injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the public corporation will not be sufficient to constitute actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim … . The petitioners’ contention that the respondent had actual knowledge of their claim solely on the basis of the allegation that its employee was directly involved in the accident, without more, such as a report or record demonstrating that the respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, is without merit … . Matter of Thill v North Shore Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04332, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Embankment Near a Stream Was an “Open and Obvious” Dangerous Condition at 3 a.m.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants (property owners).  Plaintiff, who had been invited onto the property, fell off an embankment near a stream and fractured his ankle.  Plaintiff was among a group who had gathered around a bonfire in an area which had been used for that purpose by defendants.  The fall took place at 3 a.m.  The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious (because it was dark):

“A landowner must act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining his [or her] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . “The nature and scope of that duty and the persons to whom it is owed require consideration of the likelihood of injury to another from a dangerous condition on the property, the seriousness of the potential injury, the burden of avoiding the risk and the foreseeability of a potential plaintiff’s presence on the property” …. “Liability may be imposed upon a landowner who fails to take reasonable precautions in order to prevent those accidents which might foreseeably occur as the result of dangerous terrain” … .

However, a landowner does not have a duty to protect against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous … . Moreover, the question “of whether a condition is hidden or open and obvious is generally for the finder of fact to determine” …, although, in a proper case, a condition may be found open and obvious as a matter of law. Nonetheless, whether a condition is open and obvious “cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances,” and a condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured … . Barone v Risi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04265, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, ,

School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a Student Was Not Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision/Retention of the Employee or Negligent Supervision of the Student on the Part of the School District

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and granted the defendant school district’s motion to dismiss the complaint.  The school’s marching band director, Perna, engaged in inappropriate communications with plaintiff’s child, KS, a student who was in the marching band.  The communications by computer and cell phone took place off school grounds after hours.  The Second Department determined the band director’s after-hours behavior was not proximately caused by negligent retention or supervision of Perna or negligent supervision of KS:

Because the inappropriate conduct by Perna toward KS, the plaintiff’s child, occurred after school hours and off school grounds by means of their personal computers and cellular phones, the causes of action alleging negligent retention and supervision cannot provide a basis for liability against the appellants. Although KS first met Perna through the marching band, KS’s injuries were not proximately caused by any negligent retention or supervision by the appellants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent supervision of KS, since the appellants established, prima facie, that the wrongful acts occurred outside of the school grounds … and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. MS, etc. v Arlington Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04290, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

, ,

Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid a Fee to Participate in the Basketball Game In Which He Was Injured

Plaintiff paid a fee to participate in a basketball league and signed a release of liability.  He was injured during a game when his hand went through the glass of a door behind a basketball hoop. The defendants sought permission to amend their answer to assert the defense of release and Supreme Court allowed the amendment. The Second Department determined the motion for leave to amend the answer should have been denied because the affirmative defense was “patently devoid of merit.” General Obligations Law 5-326 nullifies any such release where the owner or operator of a sports facility charges a fee for use of the facility. Falzone v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04273, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

[General Obligations Law 5-326 provides: “Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”]

 

,

Compliance With the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) Re: a Sidewalk Vault Cover Did Not Override Cable Company’s General Duty Not to Create a Hazardous Condition

Plaintiff tripped on a sidewalk in front of defendant’s (Palm Beach’s) property in the vicinity of a vault cover installed by defendant cable company (Cablevision).  The Second Department determined the causes of action against both defendants properly survived summary judgment. There was no showing Palm Beach did not have constructive notice of the condition. Cablevision argued that dismissal was warranted because it had complied with the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) concerning sidewalk installations.  Supreme Court properly held that the duties imposed by the regulations were in addition to the generally duty not to create a hazardous condition:

Contrary to the contention of the Cablevision defendants, they cannot be absolved of such liability by either the “guarantee period” set forth in 34 RCNY 2-11(e)(16)(ii) (“Permittees shall be responsible for permanent restoration and maintenance of street openings and excavations for a period of three years on unprotected streets”) or the 12-inch rule set forth in 34 RCNY 2-07(b)(1) and (2) (requiring owners of covers or gratings to “monitor[ ] the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” and to “replace or repair” any defective cover or grating and any defective street condition found within twelve inches of the cover or grating). As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the regulations relied on by the Cablevision defendants impose upon them a duty to maintain their vault and the surrounding area that is separate from, and in addition to, their duty not to create hazardous conditions … . Shehata v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04305, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises

he Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendants, who held a fair on their premises, were liable to plaintiff who was attacked by two teenage boys during the fair. There was evidence a security guard had been notified that a fight was about to break out and did nothing:

“While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults … .

Here, the church defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence which demonstrated that the infant plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an unexpected and unforeseeable assault … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault of the infant plaintiff was unexpected and unforeseeable. The plaintiffs presented a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s girlfriend, who explained that, approximately 30 minutes before the subject incident, she spoke to a security guard at the fair and advised him that there was a “confrontation” and that it was “getting worse.” Bisignano v Raabe, 2015 NY Slip Op 04081, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict as against the weight of the evidence was properly denied.  Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when he struck the open door of defendant’s (Roche’s) vehicle.  Defendant testified the door was ajar, not fully open: “A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence … .  A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause … . [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view… . However, where a jury verdict with respect to negligence and proximate causation is irreconcilably inconsistent, because the only reasonable view of the evidence is that a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence … . In this case, it was within the jury’s province to credit Roche’s testimony that she did not open her car door into the plaintiff’s path. The jury reasonably could have concluded that Roche was negligent in some other respect—such as the positioning of her car or her act of leaving the door “slightly ajar”—but that, despite such negligence, the plaintiff should have been able to avoid the collision and, thus, his conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.” [quotations omitted] Membreno v Roche, 2015 NY Slip Op 04102, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient

The Second Department noted that the “prior written notice” requirement (as a prerequisite for municipal liability for a dangerous condition) is independent of any actual or constructive notice of a defect.  Although there is an exception to the “prior written notice” requirement where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, that act of negligence must immediately result in the existence of a dangerous condition. It is not sufficient to allege that the defect developed over a period of years (here allegedly stemming from work done in 2008):

“A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice” … . A defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition does not satisfy the prior written notice requirement … . Further, although an exception to the prior written notice requirement exists where the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence …, that exception “[is] limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition”… . DeVita v Town of Brookhaven, 2015 NY Slip Op 04086, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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