You are here: / Negligence
,

Prejudice to County Investigation Stemming from Plaintiff’s Describing the Wrong Location of the Slip and Fall in the Notice of Claim Precluded Plaintiff from Amending the Notice

The Second Department determined that the failure to correctly describe the location of the slip and fall in the initial notice of claim prejudiced the investigation of the incident by the county.  Therefore, Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim:

A court may, in its discretion, grant a motion for leave to amend a notice of claim which has been served where it determines that two conditions have been met: first, the mistake, omission, irregularity, or defect must have been made in good faith; and second, it must appear that the public corporation has not been prejudiced thereby … . Since bad faith by the plaintiff was not asserted, the only issue presented here is whether service of the amended notice of claim would prejudice the County. The record indicates that the plaintiff’s incorrect information as to the accident location prejudiced the County in its ability to conduct a prompt and meaningful investigation of the accident site … . Murtha v Town of Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 05633, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

, , ,

Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)

In a case involving a pedestrian who was lawfully crossing a street when struck by an ambulance responding to an emergency, in the presence of a city employee acting as a crossing guard, the Second Department determined that ordinary negligence standards applied to the ambulance (not the “emergence” “reckless disregard” standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104) and that there were questions of fact whether the city was liable based upon a “special relationship” with the plaintiff and whether the city was liable because the crossing guard was performing ministerial, rather than discretionary, functions:

Failure to abide by the provisions set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111 (duty to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk) and 1112 (pedestrian has right of way), which was the injury-causing conduct at issue here, is not privileged conduct pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b). As the injury-producing conduct was not specifically exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the principles of ordinary negligence apply … . * * *

“To impose liability [upon a municipality], there must be a duty that runs from the municipality to the plaintiff. We have recognized a narrow class of cases in which a duty is born of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the governmental entity” … . One of the ways that a special relationship arises is when the municipality “assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty” … . * * *

Further, “[g]overnment action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff apart from any duty to the public in general” … . Here, the City defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the basis that the crossing guard’s actions were discretionary. Based on their submissions in support of their cross motion, and under the circumstances here, the City defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the crossing guard’s actions constituted ministerial governmental functions … . Benn v New York Presbyt Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05615, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff tripped on a dolly or “pallet jack” which was low to the ground and had been left in an aisle of defendants’ store. The fact that the presence of the dolly was open and obvious did not eliminate the defendants’ obligation to keep the premises safe:

Proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability against an owner for failure to maintain property in a safe condition … . While such proof is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, a hazard that is open and obvious “may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff distracted” … . “The determination of [w]hether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances'” …, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case … .

Here, the defendants contend that, even if they created the condition at issue, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the pallet jack in the aisle was an open and obvious condition, and not inherently dangerous. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the pallet jack was inherently dangerous …, and failed to establish prima facie that they maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition… . Russo v Home Goods, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05529, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

,

Advertising in New York and an Interactive Website Not Enough to Exercise Long-Arm Jurisdiction

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action against a Vermont ski business (Killington) because plaintiffs failed demonstrate a basis for New York’s long-arm jurisdiction. The court noted that advertising in New York and the existence of an interactive website through which out-of-state residents make reservations for participation in the defendant’s ski camp was not sufficient to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of New York courts:

Even assuming that Killington engaged in substantial advertising in New York, as the plaintiffs claim, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Killington also engaged in substantial activity within this State sufficient to satisfy the solicitation-plus standard. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, this Court’s decision in Grimaldi v Guinn (72 AD3d 37, 49-50) does not stand for the principle that a business’s interactive website, accessible in New York, subjects it to suit in this State for all purposes. Instead, the Grimaldi decision stands only for the more limited principle that a website may support specific jurisdiction in New York where the claim asserted has some relationship to the business transacted via the website … . Here, even Killington’s alleged substantial solicitation in New York constitutes no more than solicitation … .

CPLR 302(a)(1), the section of New York’s long-arm statute at issue in this case, grants New York courts jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries when the action arises out of the nondomiciliaries’ “transact[ion of] any business within the state or contract [] . . . to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302[a][1]). Pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), jurisdiction is proper “even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … . Mejia-Haffner v Killington, Ltd, 2014 NY Slip OP 05522, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

,

Successive Summary Judgment Motions OK Based On Evidence Learned in Discovery

The Third Department noted that successive summary judgment motions are allowed where discovery turns up new evidence.  In this case summary judgment was granted to the defendants who were struck by plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle which had crossed over into on-coming traffic:

Although successive summary judgment motions are generally discouraged absent “‘a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause'” …, where, as here, evidence produced from additional discovery places the motion court “in a far better position to determine” a legally dispositive issue, the court should not be precluded from exercising its discretion to consider the merits of a subsequent motion … . Foster v Kelly, 2014 NY Slip Op 05472, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

Mother Could Not Maintain a Cause of Action for Emotional Harm Based Upon the Death of Her Baby—Although the Baby Was “Pre-Viable” and Unconscious, the Baby Was Born Alive and the Mother Suffered No Independent Injury

The First Department determined mother could not bring a cause of action for emotional harm as a result of the death of her premature baby.  Although the baby was “pre-viable,” the baby was born alive and the mother suffered no independent injury.

The mother’s argument that the fact that the baby was “pre-viable” unconscious and lived for only a few hours distinguished this case from the controlling cases was rejected:

Plaintiff argues that the rationale of Mendez v Bhattacharya (15 Misc 3d 974) should be applied to this case. In Mendez, the infant had an Apgar score of one at one minute and zero at five minutes (15 Misc 3d at 981). It was uncontroverted that “even if there was a technical sign of life due to the lingering heartbeat, the child was not viable, since there was no other sign of life besides the momentary heartbeat” (id. at 982). The infant had no respiration and efforts to resuscitate by mechanical ventilation and CPR were unsuccessful (id. at 981). The court found that under those facts, the presence of a “momentary heartbeat” did not rise to the level of a live birth within the purview of the Broadnax and Sheppard-Mobley decisions, and therefore the plaintiff mother had a viable cause of action for emotional distress (id. at 983).

That is clearly not the situation before us. To accept plaintiff’s contention that, where there is a live birth but the infant never attains consciousness, a mother should be permitted to maintain a cause of action for emotional distress would impermissibly expand the narrow holdings in Broadnax and Sheppard-Mobley. Plaintiff was entitled to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of the person who was injured, i.e., the infant who survived, albeit briefly … . Levin v New York City Health & Hosps Corp…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05492, 1st Dept 7-24-14

 

Water Tracked In from Sidewalk Cleaning Raised Question of Fact About Creation of a Dangerous Condition in a Slip and Fall Case—Open and Obvious Condition Relieves Owner of Duty to Warn But Not Duty to Keep Premises Safe

The First Department determined there were questions of fact about whether the independent contractor which cleaned the sidewalks adjacent to defendants’ office building created the dangerous condition.  The sidewalks were cleaned by hosing them down.  It was alleged that water tracked in from the sidewalks created a slippery condition, causing plaintiff’s fall.  The court noted that an open and obvious condition relieves the owner of a duty to warn, but does not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition:

In this case a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendants created a dangerous condition in the course of cleaning the sidewalk by hosing down the perimeter of the building without taking precautions to keep water from being tracked onto the marble lobby floor. Slippery conditions created by defendants in the course of cleaning a premises can give rise to liability … . Tracked-in water that creates a slippery floor can be a dangerous condition … . While reasonable care does not require an owner to completely cover a lobby floor with mats to prevent injury from tracked-in water …, it may require the placement of at least some mats … . Since there is evidence supporting a conclusion that there were no mats on the floor near the entrance, there is an issue for the jury concerning whether the defendants exercised reasonable care, including whether they took reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks of an accident while cleaning the sidewalk during a busy work morning.

Defendants’ contention that the water on the sidewalk was open and obvious does not warrant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An open and obvious condition relieves the owner of a duty to warn about the danger, but not of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . DiVetri v ABM Janitorial Serv Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05494, 1st Dept 7-24-14

 

Diving Into Shallow Water Raised Questions of Fact Re: Foreseeability and Defendants’ Negligence

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about foreseeability and negligence in an action based upon plaintiff’s diving into shallow water incurring a spinal injury.  The incident occurred in April on an unusually hot day:

The dynamic of this case is that the accident occurred on an unseasonably warm spring day, well before the swimming season would normally commence. With the lake levels reduced, plaintiff’s professed expectations of water depth were tragically proven unfounded. Compounding the problem, as explained by plaintiff’s wife, was the fact that the water was not clear enough to see the bottom. Despite plaintiff’s initial protests about going in the water, the fact remains it was extremely hot, the children had been swimming and plaintiff was wearing swim trunks. [Defendant] acknowledged that “[i]t wouldn’t have surprised [him] for them to get in the water.” Under these circumstances, whether it was foreseeable that plaintiff would dive into the water presents a question of fact for the trier of fact to resolve … . Whether defendants breached their duty of care by failing to inform plaintiff of the reduced water level also remains a question of fact .. . Correspondingly, a triable issue of fact remains as to whether plaintiff was actually aware of the depth of the water and dove in reckless disregard of his own safety. As such, his conduct cannot be characterized as a superseding cause as a matter of law … . Toyryla v Denis, 2014 NY Slip Op 05483, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

,

Criteria for Determining a Motion to Amend the Pleadings Explained

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, the Second Department explained the criteria for determining the motion:

“Applications for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment (1) would unfairly prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or (2) is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … .

“No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)” … . “The court need only determine whether the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient’ to state a cause of action or defense, or is patently devoid of merit” (id.). “[A] court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless such insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” … . Favia v Harley-Davidson Motor Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05408, 2nd Dept 7=23=14

 

,

Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating a lack of constructive notice of the condition of the stairway where plaintiff fell (allegedly the presence of dirty paper and urine):

Although the defendant submitted an affidavit from the supervisor of the caretaker assigned to clean the subject building on the day immediately preceding the plaintiff’s nighttime accident, that affidavit was insufficient to establish when the stairway was last inspected and cleaned relative to the plaintiff’s fall. The affidavit was conclusory and only referred, in a general manner, to the janitorial schedule followed on normal weekdays. Moreover, another caretaker testified at his deposition, and the defendant concedes, that the normal weekday janitorial schedule was not in effect on the day preceding the plaintiff’s accident, which was the Thanksgiving holiday. Since the defendant did not provide evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question on that day, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law… . Williams v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 05425, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

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