You are here: / Negligence
, ,

25 Minute Response Time by Fire Department Was Not Actionable—No Special Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Fire Department—Fire Department’s Duty Is to the Public At Large

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a complaint against a fire department alleging a “delinquent” (25 minute) response to a 911 call should have been dismissed.  The fire department’s duty is to the public at large and there was no special relationship between the plaintiffs and the fire department:

Generally, a municipality may not be held liable for the failure to provide fire protection because the duty to provide such protection is owed to the public at large, rather than to any particular individual … . An exception to this rule exists where there is a special relationship between the municipality and the injured parties … . “The elements of this special relationship’ are: (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” … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, there was no question of fact as to whether there was “direct contact” between the defendant and the plaintiffs. * * *

Moreover, there was no question of fact as to whether the plaintiffs justifiably relied upon any affirmative undertaking by the defendant. In this respect, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s conduct “lulled [them] into a false sense of security, induced [them] either to relax [their] own vigilance or forgo other avenues of protection, and thereby placed [them] in a worse position than [they] would have been had the [defendant] never assumed the duty” … . Kirchberger v Senisi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07986, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible for the Maintenance of Tree Wells Within the Sidewalk

The Second Department noted that the abutting property owner’s responsibility for the safety of the sidewalk (under the New York City Administrative Code) does not extend to tree wells within the sidewalk:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner of the abutting land” … . “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective on September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner; however, a tree well is not part of the sidewalk’ for purposes of that section of Administrative Code of the City of New York”… . Avezbakiyev v Champion Commons LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07966, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, ,

Although “Zone of Danger” Damages Were Asserted in the Complaint, the Failure to Request a “Zone of Danger” Jury Instruction and the Failure to Object to the Verdict Sheet (Which Did Not Mention “Zone of Danger” Damages) Precluded the Trial Court from Setting Aside the Verdict and Ordering a New Damages Trial

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court should not have set aside the verdict because “zone of danger” damages to loved ones who witnessed the death of plaintiff’s decedent (apparently caused by a collapse of a roof) were not presented to the jury. Although asserted in the complaint, no jury instruction on “zone of danger” damages was requested and no mention of “zone of danger” damages appeared on the verdict sheet.  Plaintiffs did not object to the jury charge or verdict sheet:

The issue of whether plaintiffs Gary Motelson and Evan Motelson had suffered and/or would continue to suffer emotional distress, as a result of being placed in a zone of danger wherein they witnessed the death of Steven Motelson, while asserted in the complaint, was not argued to the jury at trial. Nor was this question addressed in Supreme Court’s charge or submitted to the jury on the verdict sheet. Significantly, the questions on the verdict sheet concerning the roof support system asked the jury about the causation of “Steven Motelson’s injuries and death,” and not about harms to any others. Plaintiffs did not object to the jury charge or verdict sheet. In these circumstances, Supreme Court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial on damages. Motelson v Ford Motor Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07926, CtApp 11-18-14

 

Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden

The First Department reversed Supreme Court finding the fact that plaintiff was double-parked furnished the condition for the event but was not one of the causes of the accident.  The defendant driver had pulled around in front of plaintiff’s vehicle and then backed into it:

The fact that a vehicle is double parked “does not automatically establish that such double parking was the proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the location of her vehicle merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but was not one of its causes … .

The record demonstrates that plaintiff’s vehicle was double parked on a one way street. Defendants’ vehicle, moving in the same direction, successfully passed plaintiff’s vehicle on the left and pulled approximately three to four car lengths in front of it before stopping. One to two seconds later, defendants’ vehicle drove in reverse in an erratic manner and struck the front of plaintiff’s car, which was stationary at all times. Cervera v Moran, 2014 NY Slip Op 07945, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

, ,

Infant’s Injury Not Apparent for Several Months—Application to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Granted

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of an application to file a late notice of claim.  The injury did not become apparent until several months after the infant plaintiff was born, and all the other criteria for allowing a late notice of claim were met:

…[T]he mother’s assertion that she waited to file a notice of claim because she did not know until several months after the child was born that he was injured is a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to file a late notice of claim … . Moreover, respondent’s experts have not disputed the assertion made by claimant’s experts that periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), the injury alleged here, does not generally manifest itself until the infant fails to meet his developmental milestones, which in this case was approximately six months after the injury was inflicted, and that a layperson, such as the child’s mother, would be unable to tell that he was injured … .

Claimant has demonstrated that respondent acquired actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the instant claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, because the expert affidavits of Dr. Richman and Dr. Singh establish that the records, on their face, evinced respondent’s failure to provide the mother with proper labor and delivery care … . * * *

Respondent will not be unduly prejudiced by being compelled to defend this case, because it had actual notice of the underlying facts of the infant plaintiff’s claim within a reasonable time after his birth, and the hospital has been in possession of the records since the alleged malpractice. Matter of Kellel B v New York City Health & Hosps Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07963, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

, ,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Property Owner in Lead-Paint-Injury Case

The Fourth Department determined the property owner was entitled to summary judgment in a lead-paint-injury case.  There was no showing defendant had notice of the presence of lead paint hazard or that defendant was negligent in abating the lead paint hazard:

“In order for a landlord to be held liable for a lead paint condition, it must be established that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition and a reasonable opportunity to remedy it, but failed to do so” … . We conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that defendants had actual or constructive notice … . Faison v Luong, 2014 NY Slip Op 07794, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

School Not Liable for Injury to Student Crossing Street to Enter School–Student Was Not In the Custody or Control of the School When He Was Injured

The Fourth Department determined that plaintiff’s son was not yet in the custody or control of the school when he was injured. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore required.  Plaintiff had dropped her son off across the street from the school, and told him to stay there while she directed cars to a parking area for an upcoming lacrosse game (in which plaintiff’s son was to participate). A teammate told the plaintiff’s son to go to the school to check in with the coach.  He was injured crossing the street:

…[I]t is well settled that “[t]he duty of a school district to its students is strictly limited by time and space and exists only so long as a student is in its care and custody” … . We reject plaintiff’s contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty of care under the circumstances here. When plaintiff dropped off her son and told him to “stay there,” she made a parental decision to keep her son across the street because she was concerned about him “crossing over” given that there was “lots of traffic” in the intersection where the accident occurred. Thus, plaintiff had not relinquished control of her son, and defendants had not yet gained the physical custody or control of him that is a prerequisite to imposing a legal duty on them … . The fact that plaintiff’s son disobeyed plaintiff’s directive and crossed the street does not change that legal result.

We reject plaintiff’s further contention that defendants owed plaintiff’s son a duty because the defendants placed plaintiff’s son in a “for[e]seeably dangerous setting that the [defendants] had a hand in creating.” Because the child was never in the physical custody or control of the defendants, however, the defendants were “never in a position to . . . release [plaintiff’s son] into a hazardous setting … . Ritchie v Churchville-Chili Cent School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07792, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Entitled to Damages from the City—Plaintiff Had a “Special Relationship” with the City and Was Injured When a City Employee, Performing Ministerial Functions, Directed Plaintiff to Perform a Dangerous Task—“Special Relationship,” Which Gave Rise to a Duty Owed by the City to the Plaintiff, Defined

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion by defendant-city to set aside the verdict.  The city had been held responsible for plaintiff’s injury based upon the jury’s findings that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiff and the city-employee was performing ministerial, not discretionary, acts when he directed the plaintiff’s work.  Plaintiff was injured when the city’s plumbing inspector directed plaintiff to perform a dangerous air pressure test:

The Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a duty may arise by way of a special relationship: “(1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted; (2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or (3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Of the three ways that a duty may arise out of a special relationship, only the third is at issue on this appeal—whether the appellants took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the jury’s determination that the City and its inspector took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence … . Delanoy v City of White Plains, 2914 NY Slip Op 07615, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Comparative Negligence in Striking a Bicyclist Travelling the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a bicycle-vehicle collision action.  The bicyclist was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and the collision occurred in an intersection after defendant had stopped at a stop sign before entering the intersection.  Although the bicyclist was negligent as a matter of law, the court determined that a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s failure to see what was there to be seen (comparative negligence):

… [T]he defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident … . When asked at her deposition when she first saw the plaintiff’s bicycle, she responded “I saw an object. As I was — I stopped. And then as I proceeded to cross the intersection, I felt something. And I saw an object.” This testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses … and whether she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision with the plaintiff’s bicycle … . Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Palmeri v Erricola, 2014 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

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