You are here: / Negligence
, ,

City’s Operation of a Parking Garage is a Proprietary Not Governmental Function—City Can Be Sued For Failing to Provide Adequate Safety to Patrons

The Second Department determined a wrongful death action against the city alleging failure to provide adequate safety measures in a parking garage (owned and operated by the city) could go forward.  The court determined the operation of the garage was a proprietary function and the city could therefore be sued:

The security deficiencies alleged by the plaintiffs do not involve governmental functions or arise out of a pure “exercise of discretion . . . with respect to [overall] security measures and the deployment of limited police resources” … . The instant matter does not involve allegations of, for example, the lack of patrol cars or officers on foot patrolling the garage and the lack of general police protection …, “mobilization of police resources for the exhaustive study of the risk of terrorist attack, the policy-based planning of effective counterterrorist strategy, and the consequent allocation of such resources” …, participation by a teacher in supervising a playground as part of a school district’s overall security system strategy …, or a policy decision with respect to how the issue of homelessness should be addressed … . Rather, the gravaman of the complaint is not that the City failed to properly allocate government resources and services to the public at large, which was utilizing the garage, but that it failed in its capacity as a commercial owner of a public parking garage to meet the basic proprietary obligation of providing minimal security for its garage property via lighting, alarms, cameras, and warning signs. These measures are within the normal range of security measures necessary to satisfy the duty of care owed by any landlord or commercial property owner to its tenants or invitees. In the “continuum of responsibility to individuals and society deriving from its governmental and proprietary functions,” the lapses complained of encompass a failure to maintain the reasonable security measures expected of any landlord … .

Since the City acted in its proprietary, rather than its governmental, capacity here, we must consider the issue of whether or not the attack upon the decedent was foreseeable in light of a landlord’s duty to take minimal precautions to protect its tenants and invitees from foreseeable harm … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that triable issues of fact existed as to the foreseeability of an attack upon the decedent, thus precluding the award of summary judgment to the City … . Granata v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 06053, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

County’s Failure to Demonstrate Proper Maintenance of Sewer System Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the county was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing a complaint based upon negligent maintenance of a sewer system:

A municipality is immune from liability “arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” … . However, a municipality “is not entitled to governmental immunity arising out of claims that it negligently maintained the sewerage system as these claims challenge conduct which is ministerial in nature” … . In order for a municipality to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in sewer backup cases, the municipality must show that it had no ” notice of a dangerous condition,'” and that “it regularly inspected and maintained the subject sewer line” … .

Here, although there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant County of Suffolk had prior notice of a dangerous condition in the subject sewer system, the County’s proof regarding its regular inspection and maintenance of the sewer system was deficient. Gugel v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 06054, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability

The Second Department noted that a guilty plea in a criminal matter (in which plaintiff was injured by the defendant) can bar the convicted defendant from litigating liability in the related civil matter under the doctrine of collateral estoppel:

…[L]iability was established in accordance with the legal principle that ” [w]here a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of . . . liability'” … . Abdelzaher v Sallustio, 2014 NY Slip Op 06040, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Driver of Lead Vehicle Entitled to Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

The Second Department determined that the defendant driver who was struck from behind was entitled to summary judgment.  The court explained the relevant law, noting that the bare allegation the lead vehicle stopped short is not enough to raise a question of fact about the negligence of the lead driver:

“A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” … . “As a general rule, a rear-end collision 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'” … . This is true whether the lead vehicle is stopped or stopping … .

Where 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 … . Billis v Tunjian, 2014 NY Slip Op 06044, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Defendants Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Under the Storm in Progress Rule

The Second Department determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case pursuant to the “storm in progress” rule:

A defendant moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow or ice has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the snow and ice condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition … . “Under the storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents caused by snow or ice that accumulates on its premises during a storm until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm'” … . “However, once a property owner elects to engage in snow removal activities, the owner must act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, including certified climatological data and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties, demonstrated, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident … . Furthermore, the defendants established, prima facie, that their efforts to remove snow and ice from the platform did not create a hazardous condition or exacerbate the natural hazard created by the storm … . Talamas v Metropolitan Transp Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 06196, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

Emergency Doctrine Explained—Bicyclist Fell In Defendant’s Lane of Traffic–Question of Fact Whether Emergency Doctrine Applied

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the emergency doctrine relieved the defendant driver of liability for striking plaintiff bicyclist.  The bicyclist fell in defendant’s lane of traffic after striking the opening door of a parked vehicle.  The court explained the emergency doctrine as follows:

“The emergency doctrine holds that those faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance, not of their own making, that leaves them with little or no time for reflection or reasonably causes them to be so disturbed that they are compelled to make a quick decision without weighing alternate courses of conduct, may not be negligent if their actions are reasonable and prudent in the context of the emergency” … . ” This is not to say that an emergency automatically absolves one from liability for his [or her] conduct. The standard then still remains that of a reasonable [person] under the given circumstances, except that the circumstances have changed'” … . “Both the existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a party’s response thereto will ordinarily present questions of fact” … .  Mohr v Carlson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06067, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the jury’s conclusion the statute of limitations was tolled under the continuous treatment doctrine should not be disturbed.  Plaintiff underwent Lasik surgery and complained of blurry vision and other complications in several follow up visits which ended in 2004.  Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit after a subsequent visit in 2007.  The question was whether the 2007 visit was related to the 2004 visits such that the continuous treatment doctrine applied.  The court discussed the doctrine in depth.  The court noted that the doctrine did not apply to plaintiff-wife’s derivative claims:

Plaintiff … asserts that the 2007 visit satisfied CPLR 214-a, because it was for the “same” condition as the 2004 visits, which was blurry vision in his left eye. He further argues that whether he and defendant agreed that he would seek further treatment after the May 2004 visit is irrelevant, because defendant “guaranteed” that the Lasik procedure would correct the blurry condition, and stated that he was plaintiff’s “doctor for life” for that purpose.

Although the CPLR defines “continuous” treatment as treatment “for the same illness, injury or condition” out of which the malpractice arose (CPLR 214-a [emphasis added]), the controlling case law holds only that the subsequent medical visits must “relate” to the original condition … . Here, plaintiff initially engaged defendant to correct his blurry vision, and the 2007 visit was motivated by continued blurriness in plaintiff’s eye, thus making the two visits “related” … . Devadas v Niksarli, 2014 NY Slip Op 06032, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

,

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Pursuant to Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Doctrine Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgement should have been granted to the plaintiff pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s train, was struck when a ceiling panel (used to access the ventilation system) swung open.  The decision includes an extensive discussion of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine:

While summary judgment is rarely granted in res ipsa loquitur cases, it is appropriate in “exceptional case[s],” such as this one, where “the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … .

To demonstrate a claim under the doctrine, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of defendant’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing the accident was within defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by plaintiff … .

Plaintiff met all three elements with her submission of witness testimony and the testimony of defendant’s foreman. The foreman testified that the train’s HVAC and ventilation system was accessible through the ceiling panel that hit plaintiff. He also testified that to his knowledge, no one but defendant’s personnel accessed the ceiling panels and that he had no explanation for how the accident occurred. The foreman described the panel as being fastened to the ceiling with four screws outside and two safety latches and a safety chain inside.

Defendant concedes the first and third elements but argues that it did not have exclusive control over the ceiling panels. However, defendant offers no evidence to support its argument. Rather, defendant simply offers its attorney’s affirmation, in which counsel opines that “the only logical conclusion,” considering the foreman’s testimony, was that the accident occurred because [*2]of tampering by unauthorized individuals. This statement, which amounts to no more than counsel’s speculation about what might have happened, is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Barney-Yeboah v Metro-North Commuter RR, 2014 NY Slip Op 06036, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

,

Disposing of Key Evidence Warranted Striking of Answer

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly struck the defendant’s answer and awarded summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability because the defendant disposed of crucial evidence after having been asked to preserve it.  Students were directed to stand on a grate to pose for a class picture.  The grate collapsed and the students fell eleven feet.  The defendant disposed of the grate:

Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, that party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126 … . Since the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence …, it may, under appropriate circumstances, impose a sanction even if the destruction occurred through negligence rather than wilfulness, and even if the evidence was destroyed before the spoliator became a party, provided the spoliator was on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the defendant’s answers and thereupon awarding the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to CPLR 3126. The record demonstrates that the defendant disposed of the grate involved in the accident after having received a written demand from one of the infant plaintiff’s attorneys that the grate be preserved for inspection by the plaintiffs and their experts. Moreover, the plaintiffs demonstrated that they were unduly prejudiced by the defendant’s conduct in disposing of the grate. Biniachvili v Yeshivat Shaare Torah Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05826, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

,

Criteria for Granting Leave to Serve a Late Notice of Claim Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The infant plaintiff was injured at school and there was no doubt the school was aware of the injury, and the background of the injury, at the time it occurred.  The court included a succinct summary of the applicable analytical criteria:

General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) permits a court, in its discretion, to extend the time to serve a notice of claim … . Whether the public corporation acquired timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter is seen as a factor which should be accorded great weight in determining whether or not to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim … . “In order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the public corporation must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves” … .

Other factors a court must consider in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim are: (1) whether the claimant was an infant or mentally or physically incapacitated; (2) whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in maintaining its defense (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). The presence or absence of any one of these factors is not necessarily determinative … .  Kellman v Hauppauge Union Free School Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 05844, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

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