You are here: / Negligence
,

Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

The Second Department determined plaintiff, a student playing supervised indoor floor hockey in school, stated a cause of action for negligent supervision:

“A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent” … . A school is under a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “Whether a student is properly supervised depends largely on the circumstances attending the event'” … . * * *

The defendants’ submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the conduct of [the gym teacher], who was participating in the game during gym class and was involved in the contact which allegedly injured the plaintiff, constituted proper supervision, as well as whether the alleged negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Godoy v Central Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 03652, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

, ,

Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College

The Second Department determined defendants security company (Secuitas), security guard (Jarrett) and college (Manhattanville) did not owe any duty to a taxi driver who was allegedly attacked and injured by students on a college campus.  The complaint alleged a security guard (Jarrett) was nearby and did nothing to intervene in the attack:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . Before an injured party may recover as a third-party beneficiary for failure to perform a duty imposed by contract, it must clearly appear from the provisions of the contract that the parties thereto intended to confer a direct benefit on the alleged third-party beneficiary to protect him or her from physical injury … .

The plaintiff here was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Securitas and Manhattanville, as the contract did not contain any express provision that it would protect individuals on the campus from physical injury or attack … . Securitas and Jarrett did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard … . Securitas did not assume a duty pursuant to the contract to prevent assaults, or to protect the plaintiff from physical injury inflicted by intervening third-party assailants … . As such, Securitas and Jarrett established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ramirez v Genovese, 2014 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

Defendants Failed to Make Allegations Sufficient to Demonstrate a Lack of Constructive Notice of the Condition of a Floor Mat (Slip and Fall)—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Favor of Defendants

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case should have been denied.  The defendants failed to make sufficient allegations demonstrating a lack of constructive notice of the condition of a floor mat:

To impose liability upon the laundromat defendants for the plaintiff’s fall, there must be evidence tending to show that those defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time … . To meet their initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the laundromat defendants must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … .

Here, the laundromat defendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing their [*2]entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The laundromat defendants failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that they inspected the mat within a reasonable time prior to the accident. Thus, they failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the mat … . Francis v Super Clean Laundromat Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03650, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

Same issue and result in Maloney v Farris, 2014 NY Slip Op 03663, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

Same issue and result in Rogers v Bloomingdale’s Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03675, 2nd Dept 5-21-14,  noting that evidence of the store’s general cleaning procedures without any specifics about when the area where the fall occurred was last inspected or cleaned does not raise a question of fact about a lack of constructive notice.

 

, ,

Party Who Was Both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a Joint Trial of Two Actions Was Properly Allowed to Have Two Attorneys

The First Department determined a party who was a plaintiff in one case and a defendant in another was properly allowed to have two attorneys in the joint trial.  Pimentel was involved in an automobile accident with Wong.  Wong’s car jumped the curb and crashed into a store, injuring plaintiff Newark. Newark sued Wong and Pimentel and Pimentel sued Wong.  Pimentel was represented in each action by separate attorneys:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Pimentel’s interests as a plaintiff in his own action and as a defendant in this action to be represented by separate attorneys (see CPLR 4011…). The court promised to and did exert control over the nature of the dual representation, as necessary, and Pimentel’s defense counsel, whose opening statement, summation, and questioning of witnesses were brief, played a limited role. In any event, in the absence of any evidence of an unfair advantage or prejudice, any error would be harmless. Newark v Hector R. Pimentel, 2014 NY Slip Op 03636, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

,

No Liability for Out-of-Possession Landlord—No “Significant Structural Defect” and No Code Violation

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord could not be held liable for an accident which occurred on a spiral staircase in a restaurant which connected a basement prep kitchen to the main-floor kitchen.  The staircase was not a “significant structural defect” and did not violation any provision of the NYC Administrative Code:

Liability does not lie against defendant out-of-possession landlord because the claimed riser, tread and handrail violations were not significant structural defects … . The staircase was not an “interior stair” as defined in § 27-132 of the NYC Administrative Code …. . Nor were the claimed violations of former §§ 27-127 and 27-128 specific statutory safety provisions that may serve as predicates for defendant landlord’s liability … . It is therefore immaterial whether landlord had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition or retained a right to reenter … . Podel v Glimmer Five LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03635, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

,

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on Property

The First Department determined an out-of-possession landlord had no liability for an injury caused by a trash compactor located on the property:

[Defendant] demonstrated that as an out-of-possession owner it had no responsibility for the complained-of defect, because the defect was not a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … . In support of his position that the trash compactor is a structural component of the building, plaintiff cited Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-232 (defining “Service Equipment” to include “refuse disposal”). However, that provision is not a safety provision. Plaintiff’s argument that as an out-of-possession owner [defendant] remained liable for any dangerous condition that existed at the time it net leased the building—four years before the accident—is unavailing, since the net lessee “had reasonable time to discover and remedy the defect” after the conveyance of the property interests … . Humareda v 550A E 87th St LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03584, 1st Dept 5-15-14

 

,

Vehicle On a Flatbed Tow Truck Is Not In “Use or Operation” Within Meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the owner (Rosa) of a vehicle which is on a flatbed tow truck when the truck is involved in an accident cannot no be liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) imposes liability on all vehicle owners for accidents resulting from negligence in the permissive “use or operation” of their vehicles, including use “in combination with one another, by attachment or tow” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1]…). The statute’s primary objective is ” to provide recourse to an injured party against a person, financially able to respond, without whose conduct in permitting use of the vehicle the accident would not have happened'” … .

Here, Rosa’s vehicle was not in use at the time of the accident, either on its own or in combination with the flatbed tow truck… . Rather, it was merely cargo on the flatbed tow truck. Gibson v Sing Towinf Inc, 2014 Slip Op 03483, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

,

Plaintiff Bicyclist Entitled to Summary Judgment—Defendant Driver Made a Left Turn into a Parking Lot When Plaintiff Was Riding in Oncoming Lane

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff bicyclist who was struck by defendants’ vehicle.  Defendant driver (Robert) made a left turn into a parking lot when plaintiff was riding in the oncoming lane:

“There can be more than one proximate cause [of an accident] and thus, the proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of establishing freedom from comparative negligence as a matter of law” … . Consequently, “[t]o prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that Robert, who testified at his deposition that he did not see the plaintiff until seconds before the impact, was negligent in violating Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163(a) by making a left turn into the path of oncoming traffic without yielding the right of way to the plaintiff when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety … . The plaintiff also demonstrated that Robert’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that he was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident through his deposition testimony that he saw Robert’s vehicle stopped and waiting to make the turn, slowed down in response, stood up on his pedals to make eye contact with Robert to ensure that Robert was aware of his presence, and continued riding when he believed that Robert had made eye contact with him. Further, the plaintiff testified that, upon seeing Robert commence making the left turn in front of him, he immediately attempted to apply his brakes and maneuver around Robert’s vehicle, but there was an insufficient amount of time to successfully do so … . Sirlin v Schreib, 2014 NY Slip Op 03504, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog

The Second Department determined plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about the vicious propensities of a dog which was alleged to have bitten plaintiff:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, [the fact that the dog was kept as a guard dog,] and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

The defendants separately established their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their respective motions by demonstrating, through their deposition testimony, as well as the plaintiff’s, that they “were not aware, nor should they have been aware, that this dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior” … . Indeed, the defendants testified that they had no knowledge that the dog involved in this alleged attack on the plaintiff had ever growled at, chased, bitten, or attacked anyone prior to the subject incident … .

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Henry v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 03489, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees

The Second Department determined the waiver and release signed by plaintiff when she rented a Segway vehicle precluded  her personal injury action.  Plaintiff was taking a tour in the vehicle which was conducted by defendant’s employees.  The vehicle became stuck in mud causing plaintiff to fall:

“Absent a statute or public policy to the contrary, a contractual provision absolving a party from its own negligence will be enforced” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the waiver and release signed by the plaintiff … . Further, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not invalidate the release because the fee she paid to the defendant was for the rental of the Segway vehicle, and was not an admission fee for the use of the public trail over which the tour was conducted … .  Deutsch v Woodridge Segway LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03475, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

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