You are here: / Negligence
, ,

Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the defendant’s verdict in a vehicle collision case:

A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . “It is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that the defendant was not negligent. The defendant testified that, when she was stopped at the intersection, her view to her left, the direction from which the injured plaintiff was coming, was obstructed, yet she proceeded anyway. The fact that the defendant proceeded into the intersection without having a clear view of the traffic on Wilson Avenue and without yielding the right-of-way after a stop sign demonstrated that she violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) … . Such violations constitute negligence as a matter of law, and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Consequently, on these facts, the jury could not have reached its verdict that the defendant was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Zhubrak v Petro, 2014 NY Slip Op 08332, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Criteria for Abutting Property Owner’s Liability for Accumulated Snow and Ice on a Sidewalk (In the Absence of a Statute or Ordinance) Explained

The Second Department explained the liability of an abutting property owner for accumulated ice and snow on a sidewalk.  The slip and fall in this case occurred before NYC Administrative Code 7-210 imposed liability on abutting property owners:

“In the absence of a statute or ordinance, an owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk may be held liable where it undertook snow and ice removal efforts which made the naturally-occurring conditions more hazardous'” … . Here, [defendant]  made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf performed snow removal at the premises, and that he was not liable for any actions his tenants may have taken with respect to the sidewalk … . Harris v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08319, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Residential Facility Exercised the Care a Reasonable Parent Would Have Provided In Supervising Infant Plaintiff Who Wandered Away from the Facility and Was Struck by a Car

Reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined there was a question of fact whether a residential facility (Saint Cabrini) in which infant plaintiff had been placed (as a neglected child) exercised reasonable care in supervising her. Plaintiff left the facility without permission and moved away when approached by staff members. She ultimately walked into the road where she was struck by a car:

The dissenting Justices concluded that Saint Cabrini had not “carried its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether its staff met [the] duty to provide the degree of care to plaintiff that a reasonable parent would provide” (id.). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we agree that Saint Cabrini has not met its threshold burden. It is up to the jury to decide if a parent of ordinary prudence in similar circumstances would have necessarily employed different means to protect plaintiff under the facts of this case.  DT v Rich, 2014 NY Slip Op 08223, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Release Did Not Exclude Liability for Personal Trainer’s Negligence

The First Department determined that the wording of a release for a personal training program did not express an unequivocal intent to limit liability for negligence.  The plaintiff alleged that the trainer negligently instructed him to lift an excessive amount of weight:

Prior to beginning training at defendant’s facility, plaintiff executed a release wherein he acknowledged that there were “inherent risks in participating in a program of strenuous exercise” and released defendant from “all claims . . . which

I . . . . may have against [defendant] . . . for all injuries . . . which may occur in connection with my participation in the program.” It is undisputed that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not bar enforcement of this release as defendant’s facility is an instructional, and not a recreational, one. However, the language of the release does not reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to limit liability for negligence … . While the release warned of the risks inherent in undergoing a strenuous exercise program, it does not “express[] any intention to exempt . . . defendant from liability for injury . . . which may result from [its] failure to use due care . . . in [its] training methods” … . …[T]he release does not purport to release defendant from all personal injury claims, “whether or not based on the acts or omissions of [defendant],” or contain other language conveying a similar import … .  Kim v Harry Hanson Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08229, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether City Had a Special Relationship with Plaintiff Such that the City Owed a Duty to the Plaintiff Over and Above the Duty Owed to the Public at Large

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, determined that there was a question of fact whether the city had a special relationship with the plaintiff, such that the city had a duty to protect the plaintiff from her abusive husband. After police officers assured plaintiff her husband (Coleson), who had been arrested, was going to jail, she was attacked and stabbed by him.  Plaintiff’s seven-year-old son was with her when she was attacked but did not witness the stabbing because he had been placed in a closet for protection by a bystander.  Because plaintiff’s son did not see the stabbing, the court concluded he was not in the “zone of danger” when his mother was stabbed:

Liability for a claim that a municipality negligently exercised a governmental function “turns upon the existence of a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . “[A] duty to exercise reasonable care toward [a] plaintiff” is “born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . This Court has determined that 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 in the face of a known blatant and dangerous safety violation”… .

In Cuffy v City of New York (69 NY2d 255), we listed the requisite elements for a duty voluntarily assumed:

“(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking (id. at 260). We noted that “the injured party’s reliance is . . . critical” (id. at 261).

Applying the Cuffy factors here, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first factor, a jury could conclude that the police officers made promises to protect plaintiff. Plaintiff was notified by the police that Coleson was arrested, that he was in front of a judge to be sentenced, would be in jail for a while, and that the police would be in contact with her. As to the second factor, the police officers conceivably knew that Coleson would harm plaintiff if he was not apprehended, as evidenced by his arrest and the issuance of an order of protection to plaintiff. Given that plaintiff was told by Officer Reyes that everything was in process and she would keep in contact, there is an issue of fact as to whether the police knew that their inaction could lead to harm. The third factor is easily met, as plaintiff had direct contact with the police, by the police responding to her call about Coleson’s threats, making an arrest, escorting her to the police precinct, and plaintiff’s phone call with Officer Reyes. Finally, regarding a party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking, given the assurances that plaintiff received from Officer Reyes that Coleson was in jail and that he would be there for a while, a jury could find that it was reasonable for plaintiff to believe that Coleson would be jailed for the foreseeable future, and that the police would contact her if that turned out not to be the case. Coleson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08213, CtApp 11-24-14

 

,

Defendant-Doctor’s Failure to Mention He Was Under a Stayed License-Suspension In His Affidavit In Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment Was One Factor In Finding the Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Defendant’s Burden on the Motion

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action was properly denied on several grounds.  The court noted that it was troubled that the defendant doctor’s (Stanger’s) license was under a stayed suspension at the time he wrote his affidavit in support of the summary judgment motion, and he failed to mention the stayed suspension in his affidavit.  For that reason, among others, the court deemed the affidavit an insufficient basis for summary judgment:

…[W]e nonetheless are … by the fact that Stanger failed to disclose the status of his medical license when he prepared his affidavit in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The very first paragraph of Stanger’s affidavit recites, “I am a physician duly licensed to practice in the State of New York.” Noticeably absent from both that opening paragraph and Stanger’s affidavit as a whole is any mention of the fact that, only two months earlier, a one-year stayed suspension of his medical license had been imposed and that he was practicing medicine subject to certain terms of probation. This glaring omission is entirely inconsistent with Stanger’s ethical obligations as a practicing physician and, in our view, [*4]seriously calls into question the medical opinion he has rendered regarding his diagnosis, care and treatment of decedent. Additionally, further review of Stanger’s affidavit reveals that the opinion set forth therein was “[b]ased on [Stanger’s] review of the [medical] records in this matter, as well as [his] personal recollection of the care and treatment rendered to [decedent].” In this regard, Stanger acknowledged that he did not complete his charting of decedent’s January 29, 2009 hospital visit until after he (1) learned that decedent had returned to the emergency department the following day, (2) was advised that decedent had died, and (3) had been questioned by another physician regarding the care and treatment he had provided to decedent the previous day. Under these circumstances, we do not find Stanger’s affidavit to be sufficient to satisfy defendants’ initial burden on the motions for summary judgment, thereby warranting the denial thereof. Howard v Stanger, 2014 NY Slip Op 08088, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

Plaintiff Was Injured When an Anvil Fell Out of a Co-Worker’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Opened the Tailgate to Retrieve a Hat—Because Retrieving the Hat Was Work-Related, Plaintiff Was Unable to Sue the Defendant In Negligence (Failure to Warn Re: the Anvil) Under the Theory that Placement of the Anvil in the Vehicle Was Not Work-Related

The Third Department determined the exclusive-remedy aspect of the Workers’ Compensation Law required the dismissal of a negligence suit.  Plaintiff and defendant were co-employees, horse trainers.  While they were working, plaintiff asked defendant for a hat because she was chilled.  Defendant gave plaintiff the keys to his vehicle, telling her the hat was in the rear cargo area. Plaintiff opened the tailgate of the vehicle and an anvil fell out, injuring her foot.  Although plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits, she argued she should be able to sue under a negligence theory because the defendant’s placing an anvil in his vehicle had nothing to do with work.  The Third Department held that, because the request for a hat was work-related, the negligence suit was properly dismissed:

Whether defendant’s actions were “within the scope of employment or purely personal” involves an assessment of whether they were “both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances” … . While at work, defendant offered to lend an uncomfortable coworker a hat and, because “some advantage to the employer, even though slight, can be discovered in [that] conduct, his act cannot be regarded as purely personal and wholly unrelated to his employment” … . Notwithstanding the lack of any connection between the anvil and defendant’s employment, he was “acting within the scope of his employment” when he lent plaintiff the hat — and allegedly committed a tortious act by failing to warn plaintiff that objects may fall if she opened the tailgate — so as to trigger the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law… .  Correa v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08093, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, ,

New Notice of Claim Did Not Need to Be Filed After Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Death Due to Injuries Described in the Pre-Death Notice of Claim

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that plaintiffs, in an asbestos-exposure action against the Port Authority, did not need to file a new notice of claim after plaintiff’s decedent’s death from injuries described in the notice of claim filed when plaintiff’s decedent was alive.  After plaintiff’s decedent’s death, the original notice of claim was amended to add the administratrix and reference to the wrongful death claim:

A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first to serve a notice stating the nature of the claim. We hold that under this statute a notice of a claim for personal injuries is a sufficient notice of a claim for wrongful death, where the person injured dies of his injuries between the service of the notice of claim and the beginning of the lawsuit.

The Port Authority was created in 1921 by a bi-state compact between New York and New Jersey. As an agency of two sovereign states, it cannot be sued without a waiver of sovereign immunity. Such a waiver was enacted by both states’ legislatures in 1950. The New York version of the legislation is found in sections 7101 through 7112 of the Unconsolidated Laws.

The contents of a notice of claim are specified in section 7108:

“The notice of claim required by section [7107] shall be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant or claimants, and shall set forth (1) the name and post office address of each claimant and of his attorney, if any, (2) the nature of the claim, (3) the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose, and (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained so far as then practicable.”

Here, the relevant statutory requirements are that a notice must specify the claimant, the time and place where the claim arose, the nature of the claim, and “so far as then practicable” the items of damage or injuries sustained (see Unconsolidated Laws § 7108 …). Those requirements were sufficiently met by the explanation in [plaintiff’s] notice of claim that he had contracted malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos on the World Trade Center site in the early 1970s, and suffered physical and emotional injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result. This information was definite enough to fulfill the purpose of the notice of claim requirement: to allow the State to investigate the claim and to estimate its potential liability. It is hard to see how a later notice adding the information that the claimant had died of his disease could have been necessary to an investigation. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 08053, CtApp 11-20-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined that plaintiff did not raise a question of fact concerning whether defendant police officer exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of others when the officer responded to an urgent call by driving against traffic on a one-way street.  While on the one-way street the officer collided with another police vehicle driven by the plaintiff (another police officer) who was responding to the same call.  The court noted that the defendant had activated his emergency lights and was travelling at 15 to 20 miles an hour when the collision occurred:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle special driving privileges when involved in an emergency operation. Those privileges include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [a], [b]). But drivers of emergency vehicles are not relieved of their duty to drive “with due regard for the safety of all persons” and section 1104 does not “protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]).

This “reckless disregard” standard demands “more than a showing of a lack of ‘due care under the circumstances’—–the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims” … . Rather, for liability to be predicated upon a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, there must be evidence that “‘the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (id., quoting Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 34, at 213 [5th ed]). This heightened standard is grounded in the Legislature’s recognition that, although the exercise of the privileges granted in section 1104 may increase the risks to pedestrians and other drivers, emergency personnel “should be afforded a qualified privilege to disregard [certain traffic] laws where necessary to carry out their important responsibilities” … . This approach avoids “judicial ‘second-guessing’ of the many split-second decisions that are made in the field under highly pressured conditions” and mitigates the risk that possible liability could “deter emergency personnel from acting decisively and taking calculated risks in order to save life or property or to apprehend miscreants” … . Frezzell v City of New York, 2014 NY slip Op 08055, CtApp 11-20-14

 

, , , ,

In a Lead-Paint-Injury Case, Non-party Medical Records Not Discoverable (Re: Plaintiff’s Mother and Siblings)–Non-party Academic Records Should Be Submitted for In Camera Review–Mother Cannot Be Compelled to Submit to an IQ Test

The Third Department determined the extent of allowable discovery re: non-parties in a lead-paint-injury case.  The defense sought medical and academic records of plaintiff’s mother and siblings, all non-parties, and sought to compel the mother to undergo an IQ test.  The Third Department held that the non-party medical records were not discoverable (except for the mother’s records during pregnancy), the non-party academic records should be submitted to the court for in camera review, and the mother should not be compelled to undergo an IQ test:

A subdivision of the main disclosure statute provides that “[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable” (CPLR 3101 [b]). Medical records are protected by a doctor-patient privilege and cannot be disclosed without consent or a waiver of the privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a]…). A plaintiff waives the privilege by commencing an action that places his or her mental or physical condition at issue, but nonparties are not subject to having their medical histories made public merely because a relative commences an action … . As plaintiff’s mother and siblings did not consent and have not waived that privilege, Supreme Court should not have ordered disclosure of their medical records … . An exception exists for the mother’s medical records during the time of her pregnancy with and birth of plaintiff, but plaintiff has already provided an authorization for those records … .

Regarding the mother’s and siblings’ academic records, defendants have submitted an expert affidavit, as noted above, indicating that those records are relevant and necessary to determine whether other factors caused plaintiff’s injuries … . Considering that these records are private but not privileged, Supreme Court reasonably balanced defendants’ need for them and their possible relevance against the burden to these nonparties from disclosure, requiring that the siblings’ records be produced to the court for an in camera review … . The mother’s academic records should similarly be submitted to the court for review and redaction of any privileged material. …

Defendants’ need for her IQ test results, however, are not outweighed by the burden on her to undergo such a test, as well as the potential for extending this litigation by focusing on information extraneous to plaintiff’s condition, such as all of the factors contributing to the mother’s IQ … . Considering the private and personal nature of the information sought and the potential delay due to myriad collateral issues, defendants should not be able to compel plaintiff’s mother, a nonparty, to undergo an IQ test … . Perez v Fleischer, 2014 NY Slip Op 008101, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

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