You are here: / Negligence
,

Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff testified he did not know what caused him to fall.  The testimony of a witness about tree roots in the area of the fall did not establish that plaintiff tripped on the roots:

“Ordinarily, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing that it did not create the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “However, a defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without engaging in speculation” … . “Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation” … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through the submission of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The affidavit of Angelo Mamone, who was walking alongside the plaintiff when he fell, did not raise a triable issue of fact, since Mamone did not aver that he observed the plaintiff trip, but only observed that there were tree roots in the path where the plaintiff fell. His conclusion that tree roots were the cause of the fall was speculative. Moreover, the portion of a police report relied upon by the plaintiff contained inadmissible hearsay and, thus, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Goldberg v Village of Mount Kisco, 205 NY Slip Op 01608, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Proof of the Cause of Plaintiff’s Slip and Fall Need Not Be Based Upon Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge

Although proof the cause of a slip and fall cannot be based on speculation, the Second Department noted the proof of the cause need not be based upon plaintiff’s personal knowledge:

A defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall … . If a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall, any finding of negligence would be based upon speculation … . “That does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall. Rather, it means only that a plaintiff’s inability to establish the cause of his or [her] fall—whether by personal knowledge or by other admissible proof—is fatal to a cause of action based on negligence” … .  Pol v Gjonbalaj, 2015 NY Slip Op 01625, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Circumstances Under Which NYC Residential Property-Owner May Be Liable for a Sidewalk Slip and Fall Based Upon Efforts to Remove Snow Explained (No Liability Here)—No Liability for Incomplete Snow Removal

In finding that the property-owner (Gonzales) was not liable for an ice/snow slip and fall on the sidewalk abutting the partially owner-occupied three-family residence, the Second Department explained the circumstances under which such a property-owner’s snow-removal efforts might lead to liability, noting that there would be no liability for incomplete snow removal:

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting a three-family house owned by the defendant Maria Fe Gonzales. Since the subject premises were partially owner-occupied and used exclusively for residential purposes, Gonzales was exempt from liability imposed pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for negligent failure to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk … . Thus, Gonzales may be held liable for a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk only if she undertook snow and ice removal efforts that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous or caused the defect to occur because of a special use … . Unless one of these factors is present, Gonzales, an abutting owner of a three-family residence, may not be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner … . Mullaney v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01519, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

School Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Student Was Unforeseeable—Summary Judgment Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate the alleged assault on another student was unforeseeable:

“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” … . In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated … .

Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent supervision, the District failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged assault was an unforeseeable act or that it had no actual or constructive notice of prior conduct similar to the subject incident … . Cruz v Brentwood Union Free Sch Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01604, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

“Independent Contractor Rule”

The Second Department noted the general rule that one who hires an independent contractor will not be liable for the contractor’s negligence:

“As a general rule, one who hires an independent contractor may not be held liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the alleged negligence was committed solely by an independent contractor and that, by reason of the above-described “independent contractor rule,” it could not be held liable … Braun v Star Community Publ Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01599, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

“To a Reasonable Degree of Medical Probability” Properly States the Standard for Expert Opinion on Proximate Cause

The Second Department noted that it was sufficient that the expert stated there was “a reasonable degree of medical probability” plaintiff’s injury was caused by the accident:

The usual language is “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” but the phrase “degree of medical certainty” has been deemed sufficient (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459). In Matott, the Court of Appeals held that the relevant inquiry is “whether it is reasonably apparent’ that the doctor intends to signify a probability supported by some rational basis'” (id. at 461 …). Here, the phrase “reasonable degree of medical probability” satisfied that standard. It should also be noted that that language is the statutory standard in New Jersey for determining if there is sufficient evidence of serious injury to sue for noneconomic loss (NJ Stat § 39:6A-8[a]…). Further, [the expert] explained the foundation for his opinion, noting that the plaintiff initially appeared at an early stage of his condition immediately after the accident, and that his condition progressed thereafter … . Thus, his opinion was supported by a rational basis … . Kahvejian v Pardo, 2015 NY Slip Op 01612, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct

The Second Department determined the motion for summary judgment made by defendant-employer, R & K,  was properly denied. The plaintiff alleged that defendant’s employee, Press, removed and disseminated photographs of her from a cell phone plaintiff had left with defendant for repair.  The Second Department noted that an employer can be liable for the negligence and the intentional torts of an employee, provided that the employee was acting within the scope of employment.  The court explained the criteria for vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior as well as direct liability for negligent hiring and supervision:

“Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment” … . “Intentional torts as well as negligent acts may fall within the scope of employment” … . Liability will not attach for torts committed by an employee acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business …, or for conduct which could not have been reasonably expected by the employer … .

Here, R & K failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held vicariously liable for Press’s alleged acts, as it submitted no transcripts of testimony or affidavits from any of its employees, or business records, to support its contention that Press was acting outside the scope of his employment when he accessed and disseminated photographs from the plaintiff’s cell phone. * * *

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring and supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . R & K failed to submit any proof establishing that it did not know and should not have known about Press’s alleged propensity to engage in the conduct at issue here, or that it was not negligent in hiring Press … . Hoffman v Verizon Wireless Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01416, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim Explained

The Second Department determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied, as was petitioner’s request for discovery prior to the hearing.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

In a special proceeding, where disclosure is available only by leave of the court (see CPLR 408), the Supreme Court has broad discretion in granting or denying disclosure …, although it must balance the needs of the party seeking discovery against such opposing interests as expediency and confidentiality … . Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, they failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery was necessary and that providing the requested discovery would not unduly delay this proceeding … .

In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay, and (3) the public corporation was prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see Education Law § 3813[2-a]; General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). The injured petitioner’s assertion that she did not immediately appreciate the nature and severity of her injuries during the first 90 days after the subject incident is unavailing without supporting medical evidence explaining why the possible permanent effects of the injuries took so long to become apparent and to be diagnosed … . * * *

In addition, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter … . * * *

Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondent would not be substantially prejudiced in its defense on the merits by the significant delay should leave be granted … . Matter of Bramble v New York City Dept of Education, 2015 NY Slip Op 01450, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

Defendant Seeking Summary Judgment Under the Storm in Progress Rule Must Demonstrate It Did Not Undertake Snow Removal During or Immediately After the Storm and Did Not Create or Exacerbate the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department, in denying defendant’s (Happy Nails’) motion for summary judgment, explained the analytical criteria for the “storm in progress” defense to a slip and fall case. Here the defendant failed to demonstrate it did not undertake snow removal efforts and did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition during or immediately after the storm:

Under the storm-in-progress rule, a property owner or tenant in possession will not be held responsible for accidents caused by snow or ice that accumulates on its premises during a storm, or on an abutting public sidewalk that it has a statutory duty to clear, ” until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm'” … . However, once a landowner or a tenant in possession elects to engage in snow removal, it is required to act with “reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … . Thus, New Happy Nails may be held liable for the allegedly hazardous condition on the sidewalk if it undertook snow and ice removal efforts during or immediately after the storm that made the naturally occurring condition more hazardous … .

Here, New Happy Nails failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. New Happy Nails failed to demonstrate that it did not undertake to remove snow and ice during or immediately after the storm, and failed to show that any such efforts on its part did not create or exacerbate the alleged icy condition … . Fernandez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01410, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another Patron

In finding summary judgment should have been granted to the defendant bar/restaurant, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria re: liability for the assault by one patron upon another.  A verbal dispute erupted inside the restaurant and plaintiff was struck as the dispute continued in the parking lot:

“Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property” … . “However, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, 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” … .

The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action with evidence demonstrating that he could not have reasonably prevented the unforeseeable and unexpected assault upon the injured plaintiff … . Hegerty v Tracy, 2015 Slip Op 001415, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

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