You are here: / Negligence

In a Slip and Fall Case, Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether a Defect in a Concrete Slab Was More than “Trivial”—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined a slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about whether the chip in a concrete slab was more than a trivial, nonactionable, defect:

Generally, whether a condition is dangerous or merely a nonactionable, trivial defect is a factual question for a jury to resolve … . An owner will not be liable, however, for “‘negligent maintenance by reason of trivial defects on a walkway, not constituting a trap or nuisance,'” which may cause “‘a pedestrian [to] merely stumble, stub his [or her] toes, or trip over a raised projection'” … . Accordingly, it is sometimes appropriate, after “consideration of such relevant factors as the dimensions of the alleged defect . . ., including [its] width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance . . .[,] as well as the time, place, and circumstances of the injury” … to conclude as a matter of law that a defect is too trivial to be actionable … . * * *

Under these circumstances, and upon review of the color photographs of the defect, we conclude that defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the chip in the edge of the curb was a trivial defect … . In response to defendants’ prima facie showing, plaintiffs were obligated to submit “evidence to establish that the alleged defect has the characteristics of a trap, snare or nuisance” … . Given the undisputed circumstances of plaintiff’s fall, her attorney’s affirmation, which was of no probative value, was an insufficient response to defendants’ prima facie showing … . Gillis v Herzog Supply Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07220, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

Review Criteria Re: Nonjury Trials Explained/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Including the Provision Requiring the Exercise of Care to Avoid Colliding with Bicyclists, Constituted Negligence Per Se

The Third Department affirmed a verdict in a nonjury trial finding a state trooper 70% responsible for injuries caused when the trooper’s car collided with plaintiff bicyclist.  The court explained its review powers re: a nonjury trial and noted that the trooper’s violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the provision requiring the exercise of care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist, constituted negligence per se:

When reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial, this Court independently considers the weight of the evidence and may grant whatever judgment is warranted by the record, all while deferring to the trial judge’s factual findings, especially where those findings are based on credibility determinations … . * * *

After weighing the eyewitness and expert testimony and considering it along with the physical evidence, the court determined that the collision occurred in claimant’s lane of travel, meaning that the trooper crossed at least somewhat into claimant’s lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). “[A]n unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . The court also reasonably determined that the trooper was negligent in cutting the corner while making his left turn, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b)… . Considering the trooper’s testimony that he never saw claimant until the moment of impact, along with evidence regarding the ample sight distance at the intersection and the legal concept that every driver has a duty to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses …., the court properly found that the trooper was additionally negligent for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (a), which requires drivers to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist” … . Smith v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07229, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff’s Proof Was Insufficient to Show an Interconnected Attorney-Client Relationship—Continuing Representation Doctrine Did Not Apply to Toll Statute of Limitations

The Third Department determined the “continuing representation doctrine” did not toll the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action.  Plaintiff could not show an “interconnected” attorney-client relationship:

At all times, it was plaintiff’s burden to prove that the continuous representation doctrine applied here … . During the trial, even plaintiff conceded that while it was his hope that he would receive legal advice and guidance, neither [defendant] ever formally agreed to represent him … . * * * Plaintiff did not provide any written work product, nor was he able to recall the substantive content of any of the conversations he claims he had with [defendant]. In our view, Supreme Court was within its authority to credit the testimony of [defendants] that there was no legal relationship between them. Rather, because it was plaintiff alone who believed that he was being represented by [defendants], Supreme Court properly found that he did not establish the existence of an “interconnected” attorney-client relationship … . Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Deep v Boies, 2014 NY Slip Op 07215, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, ,

Release Given By Injured Party to a Tortfeasor Relieves that Tortfeasor of Any Liability for Contribution

The Second Department noted that a release given in good faith by the injured person to a tortfeasor relieves that tortfeasor from liability for contribution:

“A release given in good faith by the injured person to one tortfeasor as provided in [General Obligations Law § 15-108(a)] relieves him [or her] from liability to any other person for contribution as provided in article fourteen of the civil practice law and rules” (General Obligations Law § 15-108[b]).  United States Fire Ins Co v Raia, 2014 NY Slip Op 07146, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

Criteria for Common Law Negligence Re: Injury Caused by an Intoxicated Guest Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.  Plaintiff, upon leaving a party hosted by the defendants, was assaulted by three unidentified persons. The court explained the relevant common law criteria for finding a host negligent based upon the actions of an intoxicated guest:

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may have responsibility for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest …, although liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control …. “Without the requisite awareness [of the risk or threat] there is no duty” … . Colon v Pohl, 2014 NY Slip Op 07117, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

,

City Provided Adequate Supervision at Beach—Drowning Action Dismissed

The Second Department determined an action against the city stemming from the drowning of plaintiff’s decedent at a protected beach was properly dismissed.  The court explained the relevant law:

Although the City is not an insurer of the safety of the users of its parks, including its beaches, it has the duty to maintain them in a “reasonably safe condition” … . This duty includes the City’s exercise of ordinary care by providing an “adequate degree of general supervision” … . In support of its motion for summary judgment, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it had furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent …, that they were adequately trained and properly certified …, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure … . Johnson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07126, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

, , ,

Client May Pursue a Legal Malpractice Action Without Appealing the Ruling Upon Which the Malpractice Allegation Is Based Where It Has Not Been Demonstrated the Appeal Is Likely to Succeed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the plaintiff's failure to appeal a ruling that plaintiff's action was time-barred did not preclude plaintiff from bringing a legal malpractice action against the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the time-barred action.  The failure to appeal would only act as a bar to the legal malpractice action if the defendants demonstrated the appeal was likely to have succeeded:

Here, the Appellate Division adopted the likely to succeed standard employed by our sister states with a proximate cause element . We agree that this is the proper standard, and that prior to commencing a legal malpractice action, a party who is likely to succeed on appeal of the underlying action should be required to press an appeal. However, if the client is not likely to succeed, he or she may bring a legal malpractice action without first pursuing an appeal of the underlying action.

On balance, the likely to succeed standard is the most efficient and fair for all parties. This standard will obviate premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients' unfavorable result. Contrary to defendants' assertion that this standard will require courts to speculate on the success of an appeal, courts engage in this type of analysis when deciding legal malpractice actions generally … . Grace v Law, 2014 NY Slip Op 07089, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined there were questions of fact about whether the applicable regulations and codes required that there be a railing around an air shaft, and whether it was foreseeable that plaintiff would gain access to the flat roof through a window and fall into the shaft.  The opinion includes a detailed description of the relevant building regulations.  With respect to foreseeability, the court wrote:

It is well settled that, as landowners, defendants have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances” … . The existence and scope of this duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for the courts to determine by analyzing the relationship of the parties, whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm, and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks … .

The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is whether it was foreseeable that defendants' tenants and their guests would access the setback roof and be exposed to a dangerous condition from the absence of a railing or guard around the air shaft. * * *

…[H]ere, the setback roof was flat and of sufficient size and length to comfortably permit several individuals to stand or walk on it. Access to the roof was easily obtained through the hallway window, and neither plaintiff nor his friends had any difficulty exiting. … Here, the tenant of the apartment that plaintiff was visiting testified that he had stepped onto the roof through the window approximately 15 times in the two months preceding the accident to smoke cigarettes and that the previous tenant had often done the same. According to the resident, evidence of this use was visible because cigarette butts and garbage littered the roof. On this record …reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff's use of the roof and his resulting fall were foreseeable, thereby precluding the grant of summary judgment to defendants on that ground. Powers v 32 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07084, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Rear-End Collision Liability Explained

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a rear-end collision case should have been granted.  The court explained the relevant analysis:

The driver of an automobile is required to maintain a safe distance between his or her own vehicle and the vehicle in front of him or her (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]…). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Once the movant has established his or her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party’s comparative fault … . A bare allegation that the lead vehicle stopped short is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence on the part of the driver of the following vehicle … . Cheow v Cheng Lin Jin, 2014 NY Slip Op 07337, 2nd Dept 10-214

 

,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable Based Upon Right to Enter Premises to Make Repairs But May Be Liable as the Creator of the Dangerous Condition

In a case stemming from a fall from an allegedly defective ladder that was installed to gain access to a loft, the Third Department determined that an out-of-possession landlord was not liable based on a contractual reservation of the right to enter the premises to make repairs, but a question of fact had been raised about whether the out-of-possession landlord created the dangerous condition:

…[D]efendants were entitled to summary judgment as to the question of whether they were liable for plaintiff’s injuries based upon the provision in the lease retaining their right to enter the premises to make repairs. While a landlord who retains the right to enter the leased property to make repairs may be liable to injuries to third parties …, “only a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision will support imposition of liability against the landlord” … . Here, plaintiff’s expert opined that the condition of the ladder violated regulations found in the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (see 19 NYCRR 1219.1), the New York State Building Code and the Property Maintenance Code of New York. However, inasmuch as a violation of a regulation is insufficient to impose liability on an out-of-possession landlord pursuant to a reserved right to enter the premises …, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

We reach a different conclusion, however, as to whether defendants created the dangerous condition. Liability to a lessee’s employee for personal injuries may attach if the out-of-possession landlord affirmatively created the dangerous condition … . Although the former tenant hired an architect to design the plans for the premises, including the loft area and access ladder, defendants contracted and paid for the construction. Further, the record reflects that defendants took an active role in the construction project. Defendants and the tenant agreed to make changes to the architectural plans in order to cut costs, including changes to the design of the loft. While the architectural plan called for the ladder to be “mechanically fasten[ed] to surface of floor slab and at top edge to wood platform,” plaintiff’s expert opined, based upon his inspection of the site of the alleged accident, that the right stringer of the ladder was secured by three screws to an adjacent wall, not to the wood platform, and that the left stringer was not secured to the upper landing at all. Further, there was no evidence that the ladder was secured to the floor slab. Inasmuch as plaintiff contends that her fall was caused by the ladder shifting away from the loft, causing her to lose her balance, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to her, we find a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the ladder was constructed negligently and as to whether defendants created the dangerous condition … . Boice v PCK Dev Co LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07042, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

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