You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

Criteria for a Legal Malpractice Action Re: the Attorney’s Performance In a Criminal Trial Explained—Here Plaintiff’s Conviction Was Reversed and Plaintiff Made a Colorable Claim of Innocence

The Third Department determined a legal malpractice action brought by a client represented by the defendant-attorney in a criminal trial properly survived summary judgment.  The defendant's conviction had been overturned by the Third Department and he was not reprosecuted.  Deficiencies in defendant's representation were noted in the reversal-decision:

In a legal malpractice claim, proximate cause is established by demonstrating that “but for the attorney's negligence, [the plaintiff] would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages”… . Stated differently, “[t]he test is whether a proper defense would have altered the result of the prior action” … which, in the context of a criminal action, requires proof that the criminal defendant would not have been convicted … . Further, “[f]or malpractice actions arising from allegations of negligent representation in a criminal matter, the plaintiff must have at least a colorable claim of actual innocence” … . We find that a colorable claim has been demonstrated here based upon plaintiff's expressed assertions of innocence, together with our reversal of the judgment of conviction, as well as the District Attorney's decision not to reprosecute plaintiff and the consequent dismissal of the indictment … . * * *

Contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged pecuniary damages …, i.e., damages that “compensate the victim for the economic consequences of the injury” … . Arnold v Devane, 2014 NY Slip Op 08534, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

,

“Expert” Affidavit Did Not Address the Affiant’s Qualifications for Rendering an Opinion Re: the Safety of a Curb and Sidewalk—Affidavit Should Not Have Been Relied Upon by the Motion Court

In finding that defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied, the Third Department noted that the expert affidavit should not have been relied upon by the motion court because it failed to include sufficient information to qualify the affiant as an expert:

Defendant … submitted the affidavit of an alleged expert engineer who opined that the sidewalk and curb complied with all state and local building and fire codes and the sidewalk was in a good state of repair. A precondition to the admissibility of expert testimony is that the proposed expert is “possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Defendant's proffered expert affidavit does not include the information necessary to permit a court to reach such a determination. In his affidavit, defendant's proffered expert listed the initials “P.E.” after his name, stated that he is a principal in a specific engineering firm, and stated his opinion based on his inspection, review of codes and his “experience as an engineer.” While the “P.E.” would indicate that he is licensed as a professional engineer (see Education Law § 7202), the expert did not explicitly state whether he is licensed in any particular state. He also did not mention anything about his education, what type of engineer he is (e.g., mechanical, chemical, electrical), or any experience he may have that would be relevant to the design and maintenance of curbs and sidewalks. Nor did he attach a curriculum vitae that presumably would have included some or all of that information … .

Even assuming from the “P.E.” designation that this person is licensed as a professional engineer somewhere, merely stating that a person is a licensed engineer is insufficient to qualify that person as an expert in a particular case, absent any proof that he or she had any specialized training, personal knowledge or practical experience related to the subject at issue … . Flanger v 2461 Elm Realty Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08532, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

Operative Principles Re: a Collision Where Plaintiff Has the Right-of-Way Explained

In finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment, the Second Department explained the law surrounding a collision where plaintiff had the right-of-way:

A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey traffic laws which require them to yield (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141…). Since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, a movant seeking summary judgment is required to make a prima facie showing that he or she is free from comparative fault … . “Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Smith v Omanes, 2014 NY Slip Op 08418, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the school district had a duty to protect or warn pedestrians concerning a “pole vault box” on a sports field.  Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell over the box. Plaintiff thought she was using a walkway but she was on the pole vault runway:

To impose liability upon a defendant in a trip-and-fall action, there must be evidence that a dangerous or defective condition existed, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . A defendant has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which as a matter of law is not inherently dangerous … . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact specific, and thus usually a question for the jury … . Whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances … . 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 or the plaintiff is distracted … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the pole vault box was not inherently dangerous and was readily observable to individuals employing the reasonable use of their senses … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition, while open and obvious, constituted a trap for the unwary. In this regard, the plaintiff submitted photographs of the pole vault area and the affidavit of the injured plaintiff, wherein she stated that she had never been to this area of the athletic fields of the high school before, believed she was walking on a walkway, and was speaking to her daughter trying to determine which field to go to … . Julianne Oldham-Powers v Longwood Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 08411, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Wood Which Fell From a Shelf When Plaintiff Inadvertently Moved It Was the Condition for the Occurrence of the Event, But Not the Cause

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the defendant school was entitled to summary judgment in a personal injury action brought by a student.  The student had been injured when he inadvertently caused wood stored on a shelf to fall on him.  The Second Department determined the wood on the shelf was the condition for occurrence of the event but not the cause:

“In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that a defective condition existed and that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “It is true that whether a certain condition qualifies as dangerous or defective is usually a question of fact for the jury to decide” … . “However, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous” … .

Here, the defendants established prima facie that there was no evidence of a dangerous or defective condition that caused the injured plaintiff's accident. The injured plaintiff testified at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that he, in effect, inadvertently pushed the two two-by-four pieces of wood off the shelving unit with the stick. Under these circumstances, the presence of the two-by-fours resting atop the shelving unit “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event,” but was not one of its causes… . Rant v Locust Val High School, 2014 NY Slip Op 08415, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Bicyclist Assumed Risk of Injury While Jumping His Bicycle Off a Dirt Mound on a Dirt Bike Trail In a Park

The Second Department determined plaintiff-bicyclist assumed the risk of injury while jumping his bicycle off a dirt mound on a dirt bike trail in a park:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting or recreational activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions, and risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the activity … . Risks inherent in a sporting activity are those which are known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, [the] plaintiff has consented to them and [the] defendant has performed its duty” by making the conditions as safe as they appear to be … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … .

In support of their motion, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries by voluntarily jumping his bicycle from the subject dirt mound, and that the plaintiff was fully aware of the condition of the mound at the time of the accident, as he successfully jumped off the mound twice prior to the accident… . Mamati v City of New York Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08406, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury

The Second Department determined a personal injury action was properly dismissed because the condition which led to plaintiff's injury (a five-foot drop from the top of a retaining wall to the sidewalk) was not the cause of the accident.  Infant plaintiff lost control of her bicycle, left the path, and was injured when she went over the top of the retaining wall and fell to the sidewalk:

Although the issue of proximate cause is generally one for the finder of fact …, “liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes” … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendant's motion, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff, demonstrated that the accident was proximately caused by the infant plaintiff's failure to control her bicycle and the failure of the bicycle's brakes … . The retaining wall, which was erected a considerable distance from the portion of the paved pedestrian path from which the infant plaintiff deviated, merely furnished the condition or occasion for the infant plaintiff's accident, and was not one of its causes … . Any alleged negligence in the design, maintenance, or management of the retaining wall did not proximately cause the subject accident … . Rattray v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08416, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Succinct Description of Principles of Governmental Function Immunity

The principles of governmental function immunity were succinctly stated by the Second Department:

Under the doctrine of governmental function immunity, ” [g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general'” … .

Here, the defendants Town of Clarkstown Police Department and Town of Clarkstown … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the allegedly negligent acts of the police officers were discretionary and not ministerial … . Rodriguez v Town of Clarkston Police Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08417, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Criteria for an “Open and Obvious” Defense and an “Intervening or Superseding Cause” Defense Described—Effect of Plaintiff’s Intoxication and Lack of Memory Re: the Accident Discussed

The First Department determined a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff's fall from a roof into an unprotected airshaft could go forward.  The roof was accessed through an apartment window.  The Court of Appeals had reversed the First Department's dismissal of the action (on the ground the accident was not foreseeable).  On remand, the First Department addressed the defendant's arguments that the condition was open and obvious, that plaintiff's climbing onto the roof while intoxicated was the intervening, superseding or sole proximate cause of the accident, and the effect of the facts that no one witnessed the accident and plaintiff has no memory of it:

To establish an open and obvious condition, a defendant must prove that the hazard “could not reasonably be overlooked by anyone in the area whose eyes were open” … . However, “even visible hazards do not necessarily qualify as open and obvious” because the “nature or location of some hazards, while they are technically visible, make them likely to be overlooked” … . The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the condition that caused the plaintiff to sustain injury was readily observable by the plaintiff employing the reasonable use of his senses … . Furthermore, “whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … .

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that a triable issue of fact exists whether the unguarded opening from the setback roof to the air shaft was an open and obvious condition that was not inherently dangerous. * * *

“An intervening act will be deemed a superseding cause and will serve to relieve defendant of liability when the act is of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuates defendant's negligence from the ultimate injury that responsibility for the injury may not be reasonably attributed to the defendant” … . “[L]iability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence” … . To establish that a plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, a defendant must show that the plaintiff engaged in reckless, unforeseeable or extraordinary conduct, i.e. that the plaintiff recognized the danger and chose to disregard it … .

On the record before us, defendants have not established as a matter of law that plaintiff's act of walking out onto the setback roof was a superseding or intervening cause that severed the causal connection between his injuries and any negligence on their part. Plaintiff had never been to the building before the night in question, and defendants did not establish that plaintiff either knew, or should have known, that his conduct was dangerous, notwithstanding that he apparently fell during his second trip onto the setback roof. The fact that plaintiff was legally intoxicated does not alone render his actions a superseding cause … .

Defendants argue that plaintiff cannot make out a case of proximate cause because the accident was unwitnessed, and plaintiff does not recall what happened, and thus there can be no showing that a parapet or railing would have prevented the accident. However, plaintiff need not exclude every possible cause of his fall other than the premises defects alleged … . Regardless of whether plaintiff slipped, tripped, or fell, an issue of fact exists whether his fall down into the air shaft was, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the setback roof was open to the unguarded shaft. Powers v 31 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08382, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

,

Procedure for Determining a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Where the Defendant Submits Evidence Explained/Elements of Gross Negligence Explained

The Second Department, in finding the complaint adequately pled gross negligence (re: packing and transporting an art collection), explained the analytical criteria for dealing with a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) where evidence is submitted by the defendant:

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences” … . The court is limited to “an examination of the pleadings to determine whether they state a cause of action,” and the “plaintiff may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . “The test of the sufficiency of a pleading is whether it gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments'” … .

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)” …, and, if it does so, “the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” … .

Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others” … . “Stated differently, a party is grossly negligent when it fails to exercise even slight care or slight diligence” … . Ordinarily, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact … . Dolphin Holdings Ltd v Gander & White Shipping Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08316, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

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