You are here: / Negligence

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

 

Parking Lot Concrete Wheel Stop Not a Dangerous Condition

The Second Department noted that a concrete wheel stop in a Costco parking lot is “open and obvious” and is not a dangerous condition.  Costco leased the parking lot from the out-of-possession owner:

While Costco had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous … . Generally ” [a] wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider which is clearly visible presents no unreasonable risk of harm'” … .

Here, Costco established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the wheel stop over which the plaintiff tripped and fell, which was cement-colored in contrast to the color of the pavement to which it was affixed, was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses … . Miller v Costco Wholesale Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01429, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined defendant in a slip and fall case was not entitled to summary judgment because it did not demonstrate its lack of constructive notice of the condition (glass debris):

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit [the] defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s accident and, thus, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with regard to their contention that they lacked constructive notice of the glass debris … . The defendants’ failure to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required the denial of their motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Santiago v HMS Host Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01437, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Against Owner Properly Dismissed—Owner Did Not Exercise Supervisory Control Over Plaintiff’s Work

The Fourth Department determined the owner was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action based upon evidence the owner did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work:

It is well settled that, “[w]here the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Here, defendants met their burden on the motion of establishing that they did not direct or control plaintiff’s work …. “There is no evidence that defendant[s] gave anything more than general instructions on what needed to be done, not how to do it, and monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work is not enough to impose liability under section 200” or under the common law.. . Matter of Mitchell v NRG Endergy Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01367, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, , ,

Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department determined the cause of action for battery was not duplicative of the cause of action for dental malpractice because it was based upon the allegations consent to the procedure was completely absent or was fraudulently induced.  In addition, there were questions of fact re: the deceptive business practices cause of action:

…[T]he cause of action asserting the complete absence of consent and/or fraudulently induced consent for treatment is properly treated as one for battery rather than for dental malpractice, and it is not duplicative of the dental malpractice cause of action … . “It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . The court properly denied that part of the … defendants’ motion with respect to the battery cause of action, inasmuch as they failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not intentionally engage in offensive bodily contact without plaintiff’s consent”… . …

A cause of action for deceptive business practices under section 349 “requires proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially deceptive or misleading, causing injury” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the … defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the underlying transaction was private in nature and the allegedly deceptive acts were not aimed at the public at large …, we conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raised issues of fact concerning whether the … defendants engaged in a scheme to place profits before patient care, which allegedly included fraudulent practices that impacted consumers at large beyond a particular dentist’s treatment of an individual patient … . Matter of Smiles, 2015 NY Slip Op 01362, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

,

One- and Two- Family Homeowners’ Exemption Precluded Labor Law 240 (1) and 246 (1) Causes of Action/Defendant-Owner’s Failure to Demonstrate He Did Not Create or Have Notice of the Alleged Dangerous Condition Precluded Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action

After finding that the Labor Law 240(1) and 246(1) causes of action were properly dismissed (one- and two-family homeowner exemption), the Second Department determined the summary judgment should not have been granted to the homeowner on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action.  The motion for summary judgment failed to address the allegation the owner created or had notice of the dangerous condition:

The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused both by a dangerous condition on the premises and the “means and methods” of construction. Accordingly, in order to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action, Elias was required to address both theories … . Since Elias failed to establish, prima facie, that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises, that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against him should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s papers submitted in opposition… . Pineda v Elias, 2015 NY Slip Op 01254, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).

After finding there was a question of fact whether the dentist (Weiss) who treated plaintiff was an employee of defendant-Toothsavers or an independent contractor, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff gave informed consent to the procedure:

“The Toothsavers defendants contend that because Weiss was an independent contractor, not an employee, they cannot be vicariously liable for Weiss’s malpractice. The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced or, more importantly, the means used to achieve the results” … . …

“To establish a cause of action [to recover damages] for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, [a] plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . Chan v Toothsavers Dental Care Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01236, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

Criteria for Holding Property Owner Liable for an Assault on the Owner’s Property Succinctly Described

In affirming the dismissal of the complaint against the property owner which alleged liability for an assault which occurred during a party on the property, the Second Department explained the criteria for such liability.  Here there was no showing that the assault was foreseeable or that the property owner had the opportunity to control the conduct of the assailant:

“A property owner, or one in possession or control of property, has a duty to take reasonable measures to control the foreseeable conduct of third parties on the property to prevent them from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others” … . “This duty arises when there is an ability and opportunity to control such conduct, and an awareness of the need to do so” … . Morris v Chase Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 01249, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

, ,

Order Granting a Motion In Limine Is Appealable If It Effectively Limits the Presentation of a Legal Theory at Trial

The Fourth Department determined the order granting defendant's motion in limine was appealable because the order limited the theories available for use at trial, not merely the admissibility of evidence (which would not be appealable).  The Fourth Department found that the motion in limine should not have been granted because it effectively precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of continuous representation which may have tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action:

In the order on appeal, the court granted defendants' motions to preclude plaintiffs from introducing evidence that any of the defendants represented plaintiffs with respect to any issue other than an issue in the context of a medical malpractice action against a physician. The effect of that order was to limit plaintiffs to introducing evidence that, in 1994, one of the defendants made a statement to Gary M. Dischiavi (plaintiff) indicating that the medical malpractice action was not viable.

We note at the outset that, although the parties do not address the appealability of this order determining a motion in limine, we conclude that plaintiffs may appeal from the order at issue … . “Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . This Court has noted, however, that “there is a distinction between an order that limits the admissibility of evidence,' which is not appealable . . . , and one that limits the legal theories of liability to be tried' or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . Here, the order precluded the introduction of the vast majority of the evidence on the issue whether defendants continued to represent plaintiffs so as to toll the statute of limitations, and thus it is appealable because it limits the scope of the issues at trial … . Dischiavi v Calli, 2015 NY Slip Op 01116, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

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