You are here: / Negligence
,

Evidence of General Inspection Practices, As Opposed to the Specific Inspection and Cleaning Practices Re: Where the Plaintiff Slipped and Fell, Insufficient to Entitle Defendant to Summary Judgment

The Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff slipped on a wet floor in the ladies room.  The defendant submitted only general information about its inspection practices without any specifics about the inspection or cleaning of the area where plaintiff fell:

“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it did not create the hazardous condition which allegedly caused the fall, and did not have actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “In order to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s fall” … . “A movant cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case” … . Moreover, a defendant’s reference to general inspection practices, without evidence as to when the area at issue was inspected relative to the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall, will not suffice to establish the lack of constructive notice of the existence of a dangerous condition … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, since the defendant failed to submit any evidence regarding particularized or specific inspections or cleaning procedures that were utilized in the subject area relative to the time of the plaintiff’s accident … . Fernandez v Festival Fun Parks LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07978, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not look down and did not know the cause of her fall was fatal to the action.  The court determined that plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to the summary judgment motion stated a “feigned issue” designed to avoid the consequences of her deposition testimony.  In addition, the expert affidavit alleging the cause of the fall was a depression could not overcome the plaintiff’s ignorance of the cause of the fall:

Here, the defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, in which she admitted to not knowing what her foot had been caught on, or what caused her to fall. Notably, the plaintiff testified that, as she exited a pharmacy, she walked straight, looking forward, and did not look down … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion merely raised a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony … . The deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s friend, who was present when the accident occurred, also failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as this witness was unable to identify what caused the plaintiff to fall. The plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of an expert who alleged that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was a depression of the walkway pavers, which created a one-inch height difference between the pavers and the abutting concrete curb, thereby causing a tripping hazard. However, since the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, it would be speculative to assume that this alleged condition proximately caused her fall … . Rivera v J Nazzaro Partnership LP, 2014 NY Slip OP 08001, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, , ,

The Toll of the Statute of Limitations Under the Continuing Representation Doctrine Ceased When the Attorney Was Discharged, Not When the Consent to Change Attorney Was Subsequently Filed—Various Ways In Which the Attorney-Client Relationship Can Be Terminated In this Context Explained In Some Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, held that the continuing representation toll of the statute of limitations ceases when the attorney is actually discharged and not when the consent to change attorney is subsequently filed:

An action to recover damages for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years from the accrual of the claim (see CPLR 214[6]…). Accrual is measured from the commission of the alleged malpractice, when all facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred and the aggrieved party can obtain relief in court … , regardless of when the operative facts are discovered by the plaintiff … . However, “causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies” … . The three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client on a particular matter is completed … . For the doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of “an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney” … . * * *

There are different ways that attorney-client relationships can be ended. One way is for the client to discharge the attorney, which can be done at any time with or without cause … . A second way is for the attorney and client to execute a Consent to Change Attorney or for counsel to execute a stipulation of substitution, which is then filed with the court in accordance with CPLR 321(b) (see Vincent Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C321:2). Alternatively, if the attorney deems it necessary to end the relationship without the consent of the client, such as where there is an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship or a failure of cooperation by the client, the attorney may move, on such notice as may be directed by the court, to be relieved as counsel by court order (see e.g. CPLR 321[2]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[c]…).

An affirmative discharge of an attorney by the client is immediate. By contrast, from the standpoint of adverse parties, counsel’s authority as an attorney of record in a civil action continues unabated until the withdrawal, substitution, or discharge is formalized in a manner provided by CPLR 321 … . This rule protects adverse parties from the uncertainty of when or whether the authority of an opposing attorney has been terminated …, even when the adverse party is informally aware that a discharge or substitution of an opposing counsel is pending or imminent … . * * *

The essence of a continuous representation toll is the client’s confidence in the attorney’s ability and good faith, such that the client cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the services are rendered … . “One of the predicates for the application of the doctrine is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties”‘ … . What constitutes a loss of client confidence is fact specific, varying from case to case, but may be demonstrated by relevant documentary evidence involving the parties, or by the client’s actions. Farage v Ehrenberg, 2014 NY Slip OP 07977, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

, ,

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

 

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