You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLANTIFF HAD NOT INFORMED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THIS PERSONAL INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to inform the Bankruptcy Court of this personal injury action triggered the doctrine of judicial estoppel entitling defendants to summary judgment dismissing the complaint:

While a chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor has standing to litigate cases that belong to the estate … , here the “[p]laintiff’s prolonged failure to disclose this lawsuit to the [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt renders him judicially estopped from pursuing it” … . The plaintiff took an inconsistent position in the bankruptcy proceeding by, in effect, representing that he did not have the instant legal claim. The characterization of his assets was accepted and endorsed by the bankruptcy court throughout the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding, which included, among other things, confirmation of the plaintiff’s plan … .

Based on the defense of judicial estoppel, [defendants] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them … . Cussick v R.L. Baxter Bldg. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03028, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Failure to inform the Bankruptcy Court of a cause of action (here a personal-injury suit) triggers the doctrine of judicial estoppel, prohibiting the plaintiff from bringing the suit.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act action, determined the respondeat superior and negligent supervision causes of action against the school alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a teacher should not have been dismissed. Essentially the complaint alleged negligent supervision of both the teacher and the child. The defendant school did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the abuse which allegedly took place over the course of a year in the same classroom during the school day:

“The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring, . . . retention, or supervision of the employee” … .

… “[A] school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . “In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over” the entirety of a school year, “and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse” … .. The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Sayegh v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 03065, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Here it was alleged plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher repeatedly over a year during the school day. There were questions of fact whether the school had constructive notice of the abuse which supported causes of action under a respondeat superior theory (negligent supervision of the teacher) and a negligent supervision theory (negligent supervision of the child).

 

,

A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants did not demonstrate the glass door which shattered had been inspected close in time to the incident. Therefore a question of fact remained whether defendants had constructive knowledge of the loose handle which caused the door to shatter when plaintiff attempted to open it:

Although 730-Gen’s urban portfolio manager testified that he inspected the interior vestibule doors following an incident that involved the exterior doors in the weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, his testimony only provided a vague description of the inspection performed. Importantly, he could not identify exactly when the inspection occurred, and he did not indicate that any steps were taken to examine the door’s metal handle.

The urban portfolio manager further testified that defendants had a daily inspection protocol in place to inspect the vestibule doors. However, he admitted that he had never seen anyone perform a daily inspection and he could not identify when the last inspection occurred prior to plaintiff’s accident. …

730-Gen also asserts that the doors received cursory inspections, in that they were used on a daily basis. Yet, there is no record of these cursory inspections taking place … , or any indication that they involved a reasonable inspection of the door handle … .

… 730-Gen’s reliance on the urban portfolio manager’s inspection, which occurred almost two weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, failed to establish, prima facie, that inspecting the door handle on a biweekly basis is reasonable, especially in light of the daily inspection protocol defendant contends was in place to ensure the handles were tightly secured … . Doherty v 730 Fifth Upper, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02979, First Dept 5-30-24

Practice Point: Unless the defendant can show the instrumentality which caused plaintiff’s injury was inspected and found safe close in time to the injury, a defendant’s motion for summary judgment will not be granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHICH STEP SHE SLIPPED AND FELL FROM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE ALL THE STEPS WERE UNLEVEL AND SLOPING; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WAS LATENT AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of her stairway fall and defendant did not demonstrate the nonlevel and sloping condition of the steps was latent and could not have been discovered:

… [T]he plaintiff testified that her fall was caused by the fact that the “stairs were not level . . . not straight.” Although the plaintiff testified that she might have lost her balance on either the fourth step from the top of the staircase or the fourth step from the bottom of the staircase, the report of the plaintiff’s expert witness … stated that the treads on the staircase were “uneven and pitched forward,” creating an “inherent walking hazard,” and that the “out-of-level and sloping condition” affected “the entire staircase.”

* * * “In moving for summary judgment on the ground that [a] defect was latent, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that the defect was indeed latent—i.e., that it was not visible or apparent and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection”…..  Here, the evidence proffered in support of the defendant’s motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the nonlevel and sloping condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall amounted to a latent condition and could not have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection. Toro v McComish, 2024 NY Slip Op 02945, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Here the unlevel and sloping condition of the steps in the stairway where plaintiff fell was not shown to be latent and undiscoverable upon inspection.

 

, ,

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice claim against the NYC Transit Authority should not have been granted because the motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Although physical incapacity can be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a notice of claim withing 90 days, it does not toll the period for making a timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

The court erred … in concluding that plaintiff’s hospitalization from the February 12, 2020 accident until April 11, 2020 rendered timely plaintiff’s January 25, 2021 notice of claim upon defendant NYC Transit Authority … . Although physical incapacity may be properly considered as a reasonable excuse under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for the failure to timely file a notice of claim … , it is relevant only upon timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim “made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued” … . Melgarejo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02892, First Dept 5-28-24

Practice Point: A period of physical incapacity may be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, but it does not toll the one year and 90 day statute of limitations for filing a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

,

THE “SHEPPARD-MOBLEY” BAR TO A MOTHER’S RECOVERY FOR EMOTIONAL HARM IF HER BABY IS BORN ALIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO A LACK-OF-INFORMED CONSENT, AS OPPOSED TO A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE MOTHER ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO TWO UNSUCCESSFUL VACUUM EXTRACTION ATTEMPTS WHICH PRECEDED THE C-SECTION; HER BABY DIED EIGHT DAYS AFTER BIRTH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff’s lack-of-informed-consent cause of action properly survived defendant doctor’s (Grimaldi’s) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff mother alleged she did not consent to the two unsuccessful vacuum extraction attempts which preceded the C-section delivery of her baby. The baby died eight days after birth. The First Department questioned the continued relevance of Sheppard-Mobley v King, 4 NY3d 627 (2005) which held, in an action for medical malpractice, mother cannot recover for emotional harm if the baby is born alive. The First Department distinguished Sheppard-Mobley on the ground that the instant action alleges a lack of informed consent, not ordinary medical malpractice:

This appeal concerns, among other issues, whether Sheppard-Mobley v King (4 NY3d 627 [2005]) (Sheppard-Mobley) and related cases bar a plaintiff mother’s claim for emotional harm resulting from lack of informed consent for certain prenatal procedures. We hold that they do not.

Sheppard-Mobley held that a mother’s damages for emotional harm could not be recovered on a cause of action for ordinary medical malpractice where the child was born alive and in the absence of independent physical injury to the mother. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim based on lack of informed consent—a separate theory of recovery that, under the circumstances, implicates different interests than the ordinary medical malpractice claim at issue in Sheppard-Mobley—is distinguishable.

In addition, assuming [for the sake of argument] the rule of Sheppard-Mobley applies to claims for ordinary medical malpractice and lack of informed consent alike, we are of the opinion that the rule should be revisited. * * * Now almost 20 years after Sheppard-Mobley, further consideration is warranted with respect to whether a mother may recover for emotional damages resulting from physical injuries to her fetus or infant during pregnancy, labor, or delivery caused by medical malpractice or lack of informed consent. SanMiguel v Grimaldi, 2024 NY Slip Op 02881, First Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: Here the First Department held that the bar to mother’s recovery for emotional harm if her baby is born alive does not apply to a lack-of-informed consent, as opposed to a medical malpractice, cause of action.

 

,

FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS A PATIENT’S RISK OF FALLING AND NEED FOR SUPERVISION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was blind, fell from an examining table when the nurse stepped away to throw away gauze in a nearby trash can:

Allegations that a health care provider improperly assessed a patient’s risk of falling and need for supervision or restraint, in light of his or her medical condition, “implicate questions of medical competence or judgment linked to . . . treatment” (Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp., 88 NY2d at 788) and, therefore, sound in medical malpractice … . Here, the essence of the allegations was that the defendants were negligent in their assessment of “the level of supervision, nursing care, and security required for [Davis],” in light of her physical condition and the administration of narcotic medications … . Such allegations sound in medical malpractice as opposed to ordinary negligence … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to serve a certificate of merit and notice of medical malpractice and to transfer the action from the general negligence part to the medical malpractice part. Snow v Gotham Staffing, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02833, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: Failure to properly assess a patient’s risk of falling and need for supervision sounds in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence.

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff tripped and fell on a road defect that abutted a curb where students were picked up and dropped off by parents:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . “[A] school’s duty to supervise is generally viewed as being coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child,” and therefore, “[w]hen that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “[W]hile a school has no duty to prevent injury to schoolchildren released in a safe and anticipated manner, the school breaches a duty when it releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was released from school without adequate supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting they had a hand in creating … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their negligent supervision over the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained … . Levy v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02807, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A school’s duty to supervise students may extend to areas outside the school, i.e., the area where students are picked up and dropped off by parents.

 

,

THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file and serve late notices of claim in this construction accident case should not have been granted. Although there was a report about the incident, nothing in the report made a connection between petitioner’s injuries and negligence on the part of the city defendants.  Another incident report made by one municipal entity (MTA Capital Construction) cannot be imputed to other municipal entities:

The evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City, NYC Department of Design and Construction, NYC Department of Transportation, and New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter collectively the City appellants) or the MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “‘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 incident report upon which the petitioner relied did not connect his injuries to negligent conduct on the part of the City appellants or the MTA, and the incident report, prepared by MTA Capital Construction, cannot be imputed to other municipal entities … . Moreover, the petitioner testified at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that only his employer’s personnel were present at the construction site when the accident occurred.

The petitioner also failed to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve the notices of claim. The petitioner’s ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that he was unable to timely serve the notices of claim because he was seeking medical treatment and recovering from medical procedures, as he provided evidence only that he was unable to work for intermittent periods during the eight-month interval between the date of the accident and the service of the notices of claim … . Matter of Almeida v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02699, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In order for an incident report to provide notice of a potential lawsuit against a municipality such that a late notice of claim will be excused, the report must connect the injuries to negligence on the part of the municipal defendants (not the case here).

Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of a claim against a municipality, an incident report created by one municipal entity will not be deemed to have provided notice of the incident to other municipal entities.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendants’ medical expert in this medical malpractice case did not address all the malpractice allegations in the pleadings:

“Medical expert affirmations that fail to address the essential factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint or bill of particulars fail to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . Bare conclusory assertions that a defendant did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice, with no factual relationship to the alleged injury, do not establish that the cause of action has no merit so as to entitle a defendant to summary judgment … .

Here, the affirmation of the defendants’ fetal medicine expert was insufficient to establish the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice by [two defendants].. The affirmation failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in preterm labor … , and whether the preterm delivery could have been prevented … . Neumann v Silverstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 02712, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In a med mal case, if the defense expert does not address all the allegations of malpractice the defense motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

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