You are here: / Negligence
,

Village’s Actual Notice of a Sidewalk Defect Does Not Override Written Notice Requirement

The Second Department determined that actual notice of a defect in a sidewalk does not override the requirement of written notice. The abutting landowner had notified Village personnel of the defect orally and the Village architect had indicated the defect would be repaired:

The Village established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the affidavit of its Village Clerk, who averred that her search of the Village’s records revealed no prior written notice of any hazardous condition on the sidewalk where the accident occurred … . In opposition, the plaintiff and the homeowners failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Their submissions failed to show that the Village affirmatively created the alleged hazardous condition …, or caused the alleged hazardous condition to occur by its special use of the sidewalk …. Actual notice of the alleged hazardous condition does not override the statutory requirement of prior written notice of a sidewalk defect … . Velho v Village of Sleepy Hollow, 2014 NY Slip Op 04916, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

, ,

Pedestrian’s Action, In Violation of City Pedestrian Rules, Was the Proximate Cause of Pedestrian’s Injuries (Pedestrian Was Struck by a Car)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to set aside the verdict in favor of the defendant.  Plaintiff, a pedestrian, had been struck by a car just as he stepped off the curb in violation of city rules for pedestrians:

Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the jury’s finding that an unknown operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with the plaintiff, a pedestrian, was not negligent. Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-04(b)(1), entitled “Operators to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk,” provides that “[w]hen traffic control signals or pedestrian control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is in the path of the vehicle or is approaching so closely thereto as to be in danger.” Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-04(b)(2), entitled “Right of way in crosswalks,” provides that “[p]edestrians shall not cross in front of oncoming vehicles. Notwithstanding the provisions of (1) of this subdivision (b), no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield.” Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 4-04(c)(2) provides that “[n]o pedestrian shall cross any roadway at an intersection except within a cross-walk.” According to the plaintiff, he stepped off a sidewalk approximately one car length away from the corner in an attempt to cross Rockaway Beach Boulevard at Beach 96th Street in Queens. The plaintiff conceded that there was no designated crosswalk at that intersection. Almost immediately after the plaintiff had stepped off the curb, his leg came into contact with the right side of the unidentified motor vehicle after he had walked approximately two feet into the roadway. Thus, there was ample evidence adduced at trial from which the jury could have reasonably found that the plaintiff violated Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) §§ 4-04(b)(2) and (c)(2), and that those violations, rather than any conduct on the part of the unknown motorist, proximately caused the accident … . Rivera v Motor Veh Acc Indem Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04911, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

,

Reversible Error to Give a Modified Malpractice Jury Instruction in a Negligent/Defective Design Case

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, reversed a $10 million judgment against Volvo, finding that one of the jury instructions, which was a modified version of the jury instruction for a malpractice case, should not have been given.  The plaintiff lost a leg when the ignition of the manual transmission car was switched on and the car lurched forward, pinning the plaintiff.  A central issue in the trial was whether the car should have been equipped with a device which would have prevented the car from starting when it was in gear.  In addition to the jury instruction issue, the court discussed the redundancy of instructions for negligent design and defective design, the appeal as of right and by permission pursuant to CPLR 5601 and 5602, and the inconsistency of the verdict.  With respect to the malpractice jury instruction, the court wrote:

[PJI 2:15] should not have been given in this case. It was designed for malpractice cases. As the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions says: “The principle stated in the pattern charge is the underlying basis of malpractice actions” (1A NY PJI3d 2:15 at 259 [2014]). The Committee goes on to say that “[t]he principle extends to skilled trades and to professions not generally thought of in connection with malpractice” (id.), but we know of no basis for including automobile manufacturers in that category. This is not a malpractice case, but a negligent design or (what amounts to the same thing) a design defect case.

PJI 2:15 is reserved for malpractice cases because the standards of care applicable to malpractice cases and to other negligence cases are different. In a malpractice case against, for example, a doctor or a lawyer, the defendant is generally held to the level of skill and care used by others in the community who practice the same profession … . In negligence cases generally, by contrast, the jury must compare the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonable person under like circumstances (Restatement [Second] of Torts § 283…). In negligent design/design defect cases, the reasonable-person standard has been given more specific form: the question is whether the product is one as to which “if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” … .  Reis v Volvo Cars of N Am, 2014 NY Slip Op 04880, CtApp 7-1-14

 

, ,

Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not When Plaintiff Becomes Aware of It/Continuous Representation Doctrine Can Not Be Invoked to Toll Statute of Limitations When Plaintiff Was Notified Representation Was Formally Closed

In affirming the dismissal of an attorney malpractice cause of action, the First Department noted that the cause of action accrued when an appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution, irrespective of whether the plaintiff was aware of the dismissal.  In addition, the court noted that a letter to the plaintiff which indicated the defendants’ represented of plaintiff was formally closed precluded the plaintiff from relying on the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations:

The first cause of action, alleging legal malpractice, accrued at the time that plaintiff’s appeal of the order that granted summary judgment dismissing his underlying Labor Law claims was dismissed for want of prosecution, in July 2006, notwithstanding his lack of knowledge of the dismissal … . Plaintiff then had three years to commence a malpractice action against defendants (see CPLR 214[6]), absent an applicable ground for tolling the limitations period. He did not commence this action until March 2012.

Plaintiff relies on the continuous representation doctrine. However, in June 2008, defendants sent him a letter enclosing the 2nd Department’s affirmance of the underlying judgment and formally closing their representation of him. The letter, which plaintiff did not object to, demonstrates that the parties lacked “a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject underlying the malpractice claim” … . Even accepting that defendants concealed from plaintiff the fact that his appeal was dismissed as abandoned, their letter placed him on notice that his attorney-client relationship with them had ended… . McDonald v Edelman & Edelman, PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04560, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

, , ,

Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion of Golf Balls on Plaintiffs’ Property

The Second  Department reversed Supreme Court and found that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability. Plaintiffs sued defendant golf course (Quaker Ridge) complaining of the incursion of golf balls on their property.  The plaintiffs sued in nuisance, trespass and negligence:

“The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are an interference (1) substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act” … . Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action alleging private nuisance by demonstrating that Quaker Ridge has operated its golf course in a manner that has failed to sufficiently reduce the number of golf balls landing on the plaintiffs’ property, producing a tangible and appreciable injury to the property that renders its enjoyment especially uncomfortable and inconvenient … .

Likewise, the plaintiffs’ submissions were sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the cause of action alleging trespass. “The essence of trespass is the invasion of a person’s interest in the exclusive possession of land” … . The invasion of, or intrusion upon, the property interest “must at least be the immediate or inevitable consequence of what [the defendant] willfully does, or which he does so negligently” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions demonstrate that golf balls have invaded their property with such frequency and over such a long period of time, without Quaker Ridge taking steps to sufficiently abate the situation, so as to amount to willfulness … .

Furthermore, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that Quaker Ridge breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and use of its property to prevent foreseeable injury that might occur on adjoining property by failing to take precautions in design and location, in the form of play, or in the erection of protective devices as a safeguard against injury to the plaintiffs’ property … .  Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04456, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

,

Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk in a Reasonably Safe Condition

In reversing Supreme Court, the First Department noted that, pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, owners of abutting properties are responsible for the safe condition of the sidewalk.  Here it was alleged that defendant’s workers placed garbage bags on the sidewalk which leaked and plaintiff slipped on the slippery sidewalk:

Plaintiff alleges that she slipped on a greasy liquid leaking from garbage bags placed on the public sidewalk by defendant’s workers. Pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b), the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk has a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition and is liable for failure to do so … .

Plaintiff’s testimony that she saw defendant’s workers placing garbage bags on the sidewalk in the morning raises issues of fact as to whether defendant is responsible for creating the alleged slippery condition … . Torres v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 04425, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

, ,

Allegation of “But For” Element of Attorney Malpractice Too Speculative

The First Department determined plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged the “but for” element of an attorney malpractice action.  Plaintiff alleged she would have won the arbitration in which the attorney represented her if the attorney had submitted certain evidence. The First Department found the allegation too speculative to support the action:

Plaintiff failed to allege facts that would satisfy the proximate cause element, namely, that “but-for” defendants’ alleged inadequate and ineffective representation of her in the underlying arbitration, she would have succeeded in demonstrating that her parents lacked an ownership interest in a contested family asset … . Plaintiff stated that if defendants had introduced her parents’ personal income tax returns in the underlying arbitration proceeding, the arbitration panel would have had no choice but to consider them, credit their contents, and hold that the information contained therein (i.e., that the parents allegedly made no claim of an ownership interest in the contested family asset) was binding against the parents in accordance with the tax estoppel doctrine. The contention that mere submission of the parents’ personal income tax filings in the arbitration proceeding would necessarily have altered the arbitration panel’s determination regarding the parents’ ownership interest in the subject asset is grounded in speculation, and thus, insufficient to sustain a claim for legal malpractice … . Cusimano v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 2014 NY Slip Op 04428, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

,

Suit Against City for Attempting to Resuscitate Plaintiff with an Inoperable Defibrillator Properly Dismissed—No Special Duty Owed to Plaintiff

The Fourth Department determined causes of action against the city stemming from an inoperable defibrillator which delayed the resuscitation of plaintiff (Angona) were properly dismissed.  Angona had suffered a heart attack and fire department personnel responded. The rendering of resuscitative care and treatment involved a governmental function and the city owed no special duty to the plaintiff:

All of [the] claims of negligence arise from the City’s exercise of governmental functions … . Thus, “[t]o sustain liability against [the City], the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally” … . The City met its burden of establishing the absence of a special duty owed to Angona in these circumstances …, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We reject plaintiff’s contention that the City owed a special duty to Angona by virtue of his status as an off-duty firefighter. Angona v City of Syracuse, 2014 NY Slip Op 04322, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

Internally Inconsistent Verdict Properly Set Aside

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.  The jury had found that plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries but attributed 30% of the fault to the plaintiff:

…[W]e conclude that the verdict was internally inconsistent inasmuch as the jury found that plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries, but also attributed 30% of the fault to plaintiff … . Such an internal inconsistency in a verdict can be remedied “only . . . upon further consideration by the jury . . . or by a new trial” … . Here, of course, the jury had been discharged by the time of plaintiff’s motion, and thus it was too late to require the jury to reconsider its answers to the interrogatories on the verdict sheet.

Although plaintiff failed to object to the inconsistency in the verdict before the jury was discharged …, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial … . Allen v Lowczus, 2014 NY Slip Op 04288, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

,

State’s Placement of a Stop Sign and the Resulting Difficulty in Seeing Oncoming Traffic was a Concurrent Cause of the Accident which Was Not Superseded by the Negligence of the Drivers

The Fourth Department determined the state was properly held partially liable for an accident at an intersection.  Plaintiff was a passenger in a car (driven by Kiczewski) which, after stopping, entered an intersection where it was struck by a truck (driven by Martin) with the right of way.  Plaintiff alleged the placement of the stop sign (by the state) made it difficult to see oncoming traffic:

We reject the State’s contention that claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that its negligence was a proximate cause of claimant’s injuries. “In order to prevail at trial in a negligence case, a [claimant] . . . is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred” …. . Here, based on our review of the record, we conclude that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s determination that the State’s failure to remedy a known dangerous condition at the intersection was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident … .

Although it is true, as the State contends, that the accident was caused primarily by the negligence of Kiczewski, who failed to yield the right-of-way to the truck, it is well settled that there may be more than one proximate cause of the accident …, and it cannot be said on this record that Kiczewski’s negligence, or that of Martin, was a superseding cause of the accident that severed any causal connection between claimant’s injuries and the State’s negligence … . Because claimants proved that the State’s negligence “increased the likelihood of an accident,” we conclude that the court properly determined that the State’s negligence was a “concurring cause” of the accident … . Przesiek v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 04327, 4th Dept 6-13-14

 

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