You are here: / Negligence
,

Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The court explained the plaintiff's standard of proof when the existence of a hazardous condition (here a slippery substance on stairs) is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence.  The court noted that a defendant's self-serving affidavit (claiming that nothing was spilled on the stairs) was not sufficient to warrant summary judgment in defendant's favor:

“To prove a prima facie case of negligence in a case based on a hazardous condition, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition” … . “To establish a prima facie case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence, [i]t is enough that [the plaintiff] shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred'” … . “The law does not require that plaintiff's proof positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident but defendant's negligence” … . “Rather, [the plaintiff's] proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote' or technical' to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … . “A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely or more reasonable that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant's negligence than by some other agency” … . Quiroz v 176 N Main LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00863, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


,

“Big Apple” Map Provided City with Written Notice of a Tree-Well Defect in a Sidewalk/Notice of Claim Was Sufficient Even Though It Did Not Specifically Mention the Tree-Well Defect

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the city in a tree well/sidewalk slip and fall case.  The “Big Apple map” provided the city with notice of the defect alleged to be the cause of plaintiff's fall.  The notice of claim was sufficient to notify the city of the defect in question, even though the tree well was not specifically mentioned in the notice:

“Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) limits the City's duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects . . . [of] which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” … . Prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which a plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City … .  * * *

Here, the Big Apple map provided the City with notice that the subject tree well was unprotected and potentially hazardous. Indeed, the key to the Big Apple map, which has been in the City's possession since 2003, is entitled, in relevant part, “Survey Of Pavement Defects Sufficient To Cause A Hazard.” Moreover, it is the failure to “fence” or place a barrier around the tree well, which is shown on the Big Apple map, that formed the basis of the plaintiff's cause of action. Therefore, the City did not meet its burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the plaintiff's notice of claim precluded her from asserting a theory of liability based on the absence of a fence or barrier around the tree well. The purpose of the notice of claim is “[t]o enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim” … . Here, the plaintiff's notice of claim alleged a defective condition located adjacent to P.S. 146 on 98th Street, between 158th and 159th Avenues, in Queens. The City does not argue that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced based on the description provided by the plaintiff in the notice of claim … . Nor has it articulated how investigating a defective sidewalk would differ from investigating an unsecured tree well at the same location. Moreover, any discrepancy as to the cause of the plaintiff's fall was remedied by the plaintiff's hearing testimony. Bartels v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00836, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


, ,

School’s Duty to Supervise the Child Had Ended When the Child Was Struck by a Car Just Outside the School Building/City Is Immune from Liability for Alleged Negligent Traffic Control—No “Special Relationship” with the Child

The Second Department determined the school's duty to supervise plaintiff's child had ended at the time the child was struck by a car outside the school building.  Plaintiff had already taken custody of the child at the time.  In addition, the court determined that the city was immune from liability for the alleged negligent traffic control because no special relationship between the city and the child existed:

A school's duty to supervise the students in its charge arises from its physical custody over them … . The rationale underlying this duty is that when a school takes custody of a child, it deprives the child of the protection of his or her parents or guardian, and thus must give the child the protection of which the child has been deprived .. . For this reason, 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. When 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” … . In support of their motion, the municipal defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they had released the infant to the plaintiff's custody and, thus, he was no longer in the custody of the municipal defendants when the accident occurred.

… A municipal defendant is immune from liability for negligence claims arising from the performance of its governmental functions … . However, there is a “narrow class of cases in which [the courts] have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a special relationship' between the municipality and the claimant” …. “A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … . Regulation and control of traffic and public transportation “is the exercise of an unquestioned governmental function” … . Here, the municipal defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not owe the infant a special duty and, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Giresi v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00844, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


, , ,

Injury Caused by Another Student In Gym Class Could Not Have Been Prevented by Supervision/Unsigned Depositions Which Were Certified by the Stenographer Should Have Been Considered by the Court

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to the defendant in an action stemming from infant-plaintiff’s participation in a gym-class basketball game.  The actions of another player, which caused the injury, could not have been prevented by supervision.  The Second Department noted that the unsigned deposition transcripts, which were certified by the stenographer, should have been considered by Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter the DOE). In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcripts of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff and teachers … . While those transcripts were unsigned, they were certified by the stenographer, and the plaintiffs do not challenge their accuracy. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the transcripts were admissible and should have been considered by the Supreme Court on the defendants’ motion … . This evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that the spontaneous act of the other student in grabbing the infant plaintiff’s left arm from behind and throwing or dragging him to the ground as the infant plaintiff attempted to shoot a basketball during a basketball game in gym class occurred in such a short span of time that it could not have been prevented even by the most intense supervision … . Moreover, the other student’s alleged prior conduct was insufficient to place the DOE on notice of the conduct that led to the infant plaintiff’s injury … . Thomas v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00748, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

,

Basic Criteria Re: Common-Law and Contractual Indemnification Explained

In finding that the criteria for common-law and contractual indemnification were not met, the Second Department explained some of the basic requirements for both:

“[T]he key element of a common-law cause of action for indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but rather is a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor'” … . ” Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine'” … .

… General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 …  “generally renders void a clause in a construction contract purporting to indemnify a party for its own negligence” (… see General Obligations Law § 5-322.1). … [A] contractual clause that purports to indemnify a party for its own negligence ” may be enforced where the party to be indemnified is found to be free of any negligence'” … . Dreyfuss v MPCC Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 00723, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

,

Code Provision Which Requires Abutting Landowners to Keep a Sidewalk in Good Repair Does Not Impose Tort Liability on the Abutting Landowner for Failure to Do So (Absent Specific Language to that Effect)

The Second Department explained that village code provision which required abutting landowners to keep a sidewalk in good repair did not impose tort liability for the landowner’s failure to do so:

Unless a statute or ordinance clearly imposes liability upon an abutting landowner, only a municipality may be held liable for the negligent failure to maintain a public sidewalk … . Although the Code of the Village of Great Neck Plaza requires an abutting landowner to keep a sidewalk in good and safe repair, it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … .

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an abutting landowner which could not be held liable under the Code of the Village of Great Neck for negligent failure to maintain the public sidewalk … . Ahdout v Great Neck Park Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 00710, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Infant Plaintiff’s Injuries Were the Result of Negligent Supervision at a Summer Camp

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether infant plaintiff was properly supervised by camp personnel when she attempted to jump from a platform to a monkey bar and slipped off:

” [S]chools and camps owe a duty to supervise their charges and will only be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision'” … . Whether such supervision was adequate and, if inadequate, whether it was a proximate cause of the subject injuries are generally questions for the trier of fact to resolve … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it provided adequate supervision to the infant plaintiff, or that lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . DiGiacomo v Town of Babylon, 2015 NY Slip Op 00722, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

, , ,

Discovery of Name and Address of Nonparty Patient Alleged to Have Witnessed Negligence or Malpractice Prohibited Because Such Disclosure Would Reveal Privileged Information Re: the Nonparty Patient’s Diagnosis and Treatment (by Virtue of the Unit in Which the Nonparty Patient and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Housed)

The Second Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to the name of a psychiatric patient who was a roommate of plaintiff’s decedent.  Generally, the name and address of a nonparty patient who is alleged to have observed negligence or malpractice are discoverable.  But CPLR 4505(a) prohibits revealing the nonparty patient’s name and address when, as here, the information will reveal privileged information concerning the nonparty patient’s diagnosis and treatment:

“As a general rule, disclosure of the name and address of a nonparty patient who may have been a witness to an alleged act of negligence or malpractice does not violate the patient’s privilege of confidentiality of treatment” … . However, where it is not possible to comply with a demand for the name and address of a patient without disclosing privileged information concerning diagnosis and treatment, discovery is prohibited pursuant to CPLR 4504(a) … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that [*2]discovery of the decedent’s hospital roommate’s identifying information was prohibited under CPLR 4504(a). The decedent was housed in a unit of the [hospital] that was designated for patients ages 12 to 15 years old who suffered from certain psychiatric disorders. Since the roommate’s location in that unit of the Holliswood Hospital would, by simple deduction, reveal her medical status, disclosure was prohibited … . Kneisel v QPH Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00503, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Severity of Injuries Compared With the Absence of a Damages Award for Past and Future Economic and Non-Economic Loss Indicates an “Impermissible Compromise Verdict” Was Reached—New Trial on Liability and Damages Properly Ordered

The First Department determined the trial court had properly set aside the verdict because it represented an impermissible compromise.  Despite serious permanent brain and spinal cord injuries, the jury awarded no damages for past or future economic or non-economic loss. Plaintiff, a restaurant patron, was injured falling down a dangerous stairwell after opening a door which was usually locked. Plaintiff sued both the landlord and the tenant restaurant. In addition to the “impermissible compromise verdict” finding, the First Department noted that the danger posed by the stairwell supported a finding of liability re: both the landlord and the tenant.  With respect to the “impermissible compromise verdict,” the court wrote:

…[W]e … believe the trial court correctly set aside that verdict and ordered a new trial. The failure of the jury to award damages beyond reimbursement of medical expenses, despite the severity and permanency of plaintiff’s injuries, supported the trial court’s conclusion that the jury rendered an impermissible compromise verdict … . In cases involving seriously injured plaintiffs, where issues of liability are sharply contested, and the damages awarded are inexplicably low, the verdict is most likely the product of a jury compromise … . The crux of the prohibited trade off is that, “in addition to finding plaintiff partially responsible for the accident, the jury also compromised on liability and damages by finding the total amount for plaintiff’s injuries much too low” … . * * *

Since the extensiveness of plaintiff’s injuries cannot be reconciled with the absence of a damages award, the verdict reached by the jury was likely the outgrowth of a compromise, and a retrial is required … . Contrary to the alternate argument that any retrial should at most be limited to damages, we simply cannot know whether the compromise entailed the issue of liability, attribution of fault, the calculating of damages, or any combination thereof. … When there is a strong likelihood that the jury verdict resulted from some type of a trade off, retrial on all issues is mandated … . Nakasato v 331 W 51st Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 00619, 1st Dept 1-26-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Out-of-Possession Landlord Created the Dangerous Condition Which Caused Gas Escaping from a Propane Tank to Ignite/Question of Fact Whether the Injured Employee’s Negligent Act (the Employee, Against the Direction of His Supervisor, Brought a Partially-Filled Propane Tank Inside the Building) Was Foreseeable

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about the out-of-possession landlord’s liability for an accident which ignited gas from a propane tank.  The landlord had converted the building where the accident occurred for the operation of a propane tank refinishing business.  The business was continued by the tenant.  An expert concluded that there were several ignition sources within the building, installed by the landlord, which could have ignited the gas.  Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord had created the dangerous condition.  In response to the argument that the negligence of injured employee (who brought a propane tank which still had gas in it into the building) was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the Third Department determined there was a question of fact about whether bringing such a partially filled tank inside the building (something employees were directed not to do) was foreseeable:

… [I]t is well established that, generally, “once possession has been transferred to a tenant, an out-of-possession landlord will not be held responsible for dangerous conditions existing upon leased premises” … . Exceptions to the general rule do exist, including situations where the landlord retains control over the leased premises, has agreed to repair or maintain the premises or “has affirmatively created the dangerous condition” … .

… [Landlord and tenant-employer] assert that the reckless conduct of [tenant’s] employees was the sole proximate cause of the explosion and that defendant cannot be held liable to plaintiffs merely because it allegedly furnished the condition that allowed for the accident. In order to sever the causal connection in this matter, it must be demonstrated that the employees’ actions were “extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from … defendant’s conduct” … . Certainly, the act of the [tenant’s] new employee of bringing a tank that was not marked as empty into the building –against the direct instructions of his supervisor–was negligent. Nonetheless, defendant and third-party defendant have failed to show that such conduct was unforeseeable, thereby “sever[ing] any causal link between [defendant’s] negligence and [decedent’s] injuries” … . Miller v Genoa AG Ctr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00586, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

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