You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Jury’s Conclusion the School Negligently Supervised Students But the Negligent Supervision Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries Was Supported by the Evidence/Inconsistent Verdict Issue Not Preserved Because Not Raised Before the Jury Was Discharged

The Second Department noted that the issue whether the jury’s conclusion that the school district negligently supervised students who assaulted plaintiff but that the negligent supervision was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was not preserved for appeal because no objection to the verdict was raised before the jury was discharged.  The court further noted that the jury’s conclusion was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (and therefore did not constitute an inconsistent verdict):

The plaintiffs contend that the jury verdict finding that the defendant … School District … negligently supervised certain students who assaulted the plaintiff …, but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of his injuries, is inconsistent and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Since the plaintiffs did not raise the issue of the claimed inconsistent jury verdict before the jury was discharged, that issue is not preserved for appellate review … . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ further contention, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s finding that, while the School District negligently supervised these students, such negligence was not a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries, was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence… . LaMacchia v City of New Rochelle, 2015 NY Slip Op 01422, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed about the liability of the property owner (Eastern) for work done by an independent contractor (Affraim).  Infant plaintiff was injured when he fell through a glass panel near the entrance of defendant’s building. The panel had been installed by an independent contractor.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“The general rule is that a party who retains an independent contractor . . . is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . One of the exceptions to this general rule is the “nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party is under a duty to keep premises safe'” … . In such instances, the party “is vicariously liable for the fault of the independent contractor because a legal duty is imposed on it which cannot be delegated” … .

Here, the Eastern defendants demonstrated, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the glass in the fixed panel was installed by an independent contractor in compliance with the applicable City and State building codes, and that the condition of the glass did not otherwise violate their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs’ submissions, including expert affidavits, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Affraim violated City and State building codes by failing to install safety glass in the panel … , and whether the Eastern defendants thereby breached a nondelegable duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Horowitz v 763 E Assoc Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01417, 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

 

Question of Fact Whether Fight Which Broke Out at a Youth Hockey Game Was Foreseeable

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined there was question of fact whether a fight at a youth hockey game, in which plaintiffs were injured, was foreseeable from the perspective of the Rome Youth Hockey Association (RYHA) which leased part of the facility where the fight broke out:

…[T]here is an issue of fact whether the duty of RYHA to plaintiffs included the duty to protect plaintiffs from Ricci's conduct … . “Foreseeability . . . determines the scope of [a] duty once it is determined to exist” … and, given the hostile environment in the arena before the fight, there is an issue of fact whether RYHA knew or should have known of the likelihood of the fight … . Here, the tensions in the stands built throughout the game such that we conclude that a trier of fact should determine whether RYHA had a duty to intercede and protect plaintiff … . Pink v Ricci, 2015 NY Slip Op 01077, 4th Dept 2-6-15


, ,

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

 

, ,

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


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