You are here: / Negligence
,

Presumption Vehicle Was Operated with Owner’s Consent Not Overcome—Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the unknown driver of defendant’s vehicle did not have the defendant’s consent to operate the vehicle:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s express or implied permission … . The defendant, on its motion for summary judgment, has the burden of demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Thus, to obtain summary judgment on its defense that the vehicle was used without its permission, the defendant was required to present substantial evidence that the vehicle was used without its permission … . “The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use” … . The question of consent is ordinarily one for the jury … . Ultimately, “whether summary judgment is warranted depends on the strength and plausibility of the disavowals [of permission], and whether they leave room for doubts that are best left for the jury” …

Here, the defendant failed to sufficiently rebut the strong presumption that the driver was operating the subject vehicle with its permission. The deposition testimony of the defendant and some, but not all, of its employees that the driver only had permission to drive the vehicle for work-related purposes did not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use … . In addition, the defendant failed to establish that the vehicle was stolen … . Han v BJ Laura & Son Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07480, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

, , ,

Damages in Medical Malpractice Case Paid by Insurer and Hospital—Therefore Doctor, a Defendant in the Medical Malpractice Case, Could Show No Pecuniary Loss—Legal Malpractice Suit by Doctor Must Therefore Be Dismissed

The Third Department determined that because the damages assessed against a doctor in a medical malpractice action were paid entirely by the insurer and the hospital, she suffered no pecuniary loss.  In the absence of pecuniary loss, she could not maintain a legal malpractice action against her attorneys:

Elements that plaintiff must prove in a legal malpractice action include that her attorney was negligent, she would have succeeded on the merits “but for” her attorney’s negligence and she sustained actual and ascertainable damages … . * * *

Considering first the element of damages, the undisputed proof established that plaintiff did not have to pay any part of the verdict, which was covered in full by the insurer and hospital. Plaintiff’s contention that she sustained non-pecuniary damages, such as a taint on her reputation resulting from media and other coverage of the … verdict, is unavailing since “the established rule limit[s] recovery in legal malpractice actions to pecuniary damages” … . Plaintiff continued working at the hospital after the … verdict and, as her contract was coming to an end about a year later, plaintiff was offered a new contract. … Although plaintiff did not like some of the changes in the terms of the new contract, those same terms were also made mandatory for other physicians and plaintiff was not singled out in such regard because of the … verdict. Defendant produced proof that plaintiff took the position during contract negotiations that she desired to significantly scale back or eliminate the obstetrics part of her practice at the hospital, a move that was opposed by the hospital’s other physicians. Plaintiff eventually elected to resign from the hospital rather than renew her contract. Her arguments that her difficulty in obtaining employment with comparable compensation and that subsequent potential increases in her malpractice premiums resulted directly from the … verdict are speculative and unsupported in this record … . Kaufman v Medical Liab Mut Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07398, 3rd Dept 10-30-14

 

, , ,

City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract

The First Department determined that the Conservancy, a non-profit corporation which maintains Central Park under a contract with the City of New York, was “united in interest” with the City.  Therefore, plaintiff, who allegedly had been injured by a maintenance truck owned by the Conservancy, could amend his complaint to include the Conservancy, even though the statute of limitations had run.  The ‘unity of interest” was defined by the terms of the contract.  Because the contract did not call for the City to indemnify the Conservancy for gross negligence, the complaint against the Conservancy could not include the gross negligence claim:

… [P]laintiff relied on the 2006 Central Park Agreement, a contract between the City and the Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, in which they acknowledged that they had formed an effective “public/private partnership.” Under the Agreement, the Conservancy is required to provide specified maintenance services in Central Park to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the City, and the City is broadly required to indemnify the Conservancy “from and against any and all liabilities . . . arising from all services performed and activities conducted by [the Conservancy] pursuant to this agreement in Central Park.” The City’s indemnification obligation, among other things, expressly excludes claims arising from gross negligence or intentional acts of the Conservancy or its agents or volunteers. As a result of the Agreement, the Conservancy acts, in effect, as an independent contractor fulfilling the City’s nondelegable obligation to maintain the City parks in reasonably safe condition … .

The City is vicariously liable for the Conservancy’s negligence in the course of providing maintenance in Central Park by virtue of the contractual indemnification provision, and the parties are thus united in interest … . Further, since the City has a nondelegable duty to maintain Central Park, it is vicariously liable for negligence committed by the contractor in the course of fulfilling that duty … . However, the City is correct that its interests are not united with those of the Conservancy with respect to the proposed gross negligence claim, and leave to assert that claim against the Conservancy is therefore denied. Brunero v City of New York Dept of Parks & Recreation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07444, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Demonstrated Absence of Constructive Notice of Liquid on Stairs

The First Department determined that proof of the maintenance schedule was sufficient to demonstrate defendant did not have constructive notice of a spill on a staircase:

Defendant … demonstrated that it lacked constructive notice of the liquid on the staircase through the affidavit of the caretaker assigned to the building on the day before the accident, who averred that she would have followed the weekend janitorial schedule, which required inspecting the building by 11:00 a.m. on the day before the accident and removal of anything found on the staircase, and that, pursuant to the schedule, she would inspect the staircase at around 8:00 a.m. the next morning … . Her statement concerning the janitorial schedule was corroborated by her supervisor’s testimony. Plaintiff testified that the wet condition was not present on the stairs the prior evening, when she returned home at 9 p.m. Such evidence established that the wet liquid was deposited on the stairs only after the caretaker left work and that the accident occurred before the caretaker came to work the next morning. This time frame, occurring out of regular work hours, would not have provided the caretaker with a sufficient period of time to discover and remedy the problem … . Defendant is not required to patrol the staircases 24 hours a day … . Pagan v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07441, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Personal Injury Suit by Student Against School District Alleging Negligent Supervision Properly Survived Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined a personal injury suit by a student alleging negligent supervision properly survived summary judgment.  The student was injured when she was pushed by those behind her into a door which should not have been locked:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . While schools are not insurers of student safety, they have a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward their students as would a reasonably prudent parent under comparable circumstances … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants, which included the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff and Breen, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that they properly supervised the infant plaintiff and her physical education class or that their alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . In addition, the defendants’ evidence was insufficient to establish that the locked door of the girls’ locker room was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances … . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances,” as the condition may be rendered a trap where it is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted … . Maneri v Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07336, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

,

Although Not the Case Here, the Court Explained How a Collision Between a Vehicle Entering the Roadway and a Vehicle Which Is In the Roadway (and Has the Right-of-Way) Can Possibly Have Two Proximate Causes

The Second Department determined the defendant, who apparently struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff pulled into traffic from a parking lot, was entitled to summary judgment.  Plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic law 1143, which requires a driver entering a roadway to yield to drivers within the right-of-way.  And there was no showing defendant was negligent.  The decision has a good explanation of how there can be two proximate causes of an accident under such facts (not the case here):

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident …, because each driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . As a result, even where there is evidence that another driver involved in the accident was negligent as a matter of law due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, “the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” … . Thus, a driver traveling with the right-of-way may nevertheless be found to have contributed to the happening of the accident if he or she did not use reasonable care to avoid the accident … . However, “[a] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle that has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . Desio v Cerebral Palsy Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07322, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

, , ,

Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained

In the context of a legal  malpractice action, in affirming the denial of motions to dismiss, the Second Department explained the criteria for motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [defense founded on documentary evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [failure to state a claim]:

A party seeking relief pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that his or her defense is founded upon documentary evidence ” has the burden of submitting documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim'” … . In the instant matter, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, consisting of the orders issued by the Supreme Court in the underlying action, failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations of malpractice or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law in the instant action … . * * *

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, the plaintiff is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and the court’s function is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that, but for the defendants’ negligence, including their failure to assert “appropriate claims against the proper parties, . . . the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim would have succeeded and resulted in a different, better and/or more positive outcome.” Construing the complaint liberally, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, as required, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice … . Tooma v Grossbarth, 2014 NY Slip Op 07347, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

,

Re: a Slip and Fall in a McDonald’s Restaurant, the McDonald’s Defendants Were Not Liable as an Out-of-Possession Landlord, a Franchisor, or a Property Owner—Summary Judgment Properly Granted

In dismissing a slip and fall complaint against the McDonald’s (restaurant) defendants, the Second Department explained that the defendants could not be held liable as an out-of-possession landlord, a franchisor, or as an entity responsible for a dangerous condition on the property:

The McDonald’s defendants established, prima facie, that McDonald’s Corporation was an out-of-possession landlord on the date of the subject accident, and that it had no duty to maintain or repair the leased premises where the accident occurred. Therefore, the McDonald’s defendants met their initial burden of establishing that McDonald’s Corporation owed no duty to the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Further, McDonald’s Corporation was not liable based upon its status as a franchisor. In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred … . Here, the McDonald’s defendants tendered sufficient evidence in support of their motion to establish, prima facie, that McDonald’s Corporation lacked the requisite control over the alleged causes of the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

In addition, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of New York, Inc. Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property … . The McDonald’s defendants established, prima facie, that McDonald’s Restaurants of New York, Inc., did not own, occupy, control, or have a special use of the subject property at the time of the accident and, thus, could not be held liable for injuries caused by the allegedly dangerous conditions … . Khanimov v McDonald’s Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07332, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

,

Hospital Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of Non-Employee Midwife/Hospital May Be Liable for Staff’s Failure to Summon Obstetrician When Problems with the Birth Developed/Midwife’s Assistant, Who Worked Under the Supervision of the Midwife and Did Not Exercise Independent Judgment, Not Liable

The Second Department determined: (1) the hospital (Phelps) defendants were not vicariously liable for the actions of a midwife who was not an employee; (2) there was a question of fact whether the hospital staff was negligent in failing to summon an obstetrician when problems with the birth developed; and (3) the action against the midwife’s assistant (Milligan) was properly dismissed because the assistant worked under the supervision of the midwife and did not exercise independent judgment:

In general, “a hospital may not be held [liable] for the acts of [a physician] who was not an employee of the hospital, but one of a group of independent contractors” … . However, a hospital can be held concurrently liable with a private attending physician if its employees commit independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice … . “When supervised medical personnel are not exercising their independent medical judgment, they cannot be held liable for medical malpractice unless the directions from the supervising superior or doctor so greatly deviates from normal medical practice that they should be held liable for failing to intervene”  * * *

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the Phelps defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged they were concurrently liable with Mahoney for the alleged independent negligence of their nursing staff. In opposition to the Phelps defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Phelps defendants’ nursing staff departed from good and acceptable medical practice by failing to summon an obstetrician when the infant plaintiff’s fetal heart rate dropped below normal… . …

Milligan met her prima facie burden of demonstrating that, during the infant plaintiff’s birth, she did not exercise any independent medical judgment, but was under the direct supervision of Mahoney, the attending nurse-midwife, whose directions did not so greatly deviate from normal medical practice that she should be held liable for failing to intervene. Zhuzhingo v Milligan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07350, 2nd Dept 10-29-14 

 

Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable

The Third Department determined the landowner did not have a duty to take measures to protect plaintiff who was assaulted and stabbed after leaving defendant’s fraternal lodge, even though there was evidence the lodge was located in a “high crime” area.  The evidence of prior crimes at the premises was not sufficient to render the attack on plaintiff foreseeable:

Landowners have a duty of reasonable care to maintain their property in a safe condition; although they “have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety” … . Notably, “even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the landowner cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he or she either knows or has reason to know from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor” … . “The scope of the duty varies with the foreseeability of the potential harm” … . Stated another way, “no duty is imposed to protect . . . against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” …, and “landowners have a duty to control third persons only when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Prior crimes need not be identical to a present crime in order to put a landowner on notice; “the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question” … . Finally, although foreseeability is generally an issue to be resolved by the factfinder, it may be determined as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and permit only one inference to be drawn therefrom … . Milton v IBPOE The World Forest city Lodge, #180, 2014 NY Slip Op 07242, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

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