You are here: / Negligence

Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Risk

The Second Department determined unintentional, incidental contact between swimmers in the same swim lane during “free swim” was not actionable:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is based on the principle that athletic and recreational activities possess enormous social value, even though they involve significantly heightened risks … . Thus, ” [a] plaintiff is barred from recovery for injuries which occur during voluntary sporting or recreational activities if it is determined that he or she assumed the risk as a matter of law'” … . Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . However, by voluntarily engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant assumes, or consents to, the commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the activity generally, and which flow from the participation … . An incidental collision or contact between persons confined to a pool lane during a free swim is an inherent risk of the activity … .  Rueckert v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 02918, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Failure to Take Evasive Action Did Not Constitute Contributory Negligence

The Second Department explained that a driver faced with making a quick decision because another driver has failed to yield the right-of-way is not comparatively negligent:

[The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger] entered the intersection where the collision occurred against a red traffic light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) …, and that this was the sole proximate cause of the accident. A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … .

* * * [The other driver’s] deposition testimony that she did not take evasive action in the seconds before impact did not raise a triable issue of fact. “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” …, and ” was entitled to anticipate that the [other driver] would obey the traffic law requiring [her] to yield'” … . Joaquin v Franco, 2014 NY Slip Op 02904, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Application to File Late Notice of Claim (One Month Late) on Behalf of Infant Claimant Injured at School Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted claimants’ application to file a late notice of claim against a school district.  Claimant alleged infant claimant (Zachary) was injured playing touch football and the school did not provide adequate supervision.  In finding the criteria for allowing the filing of a late notice were not met, the court wrote:

The key factors to be considered in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim are (1) whether the claimant or claimants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely serve a notice of claim, (2) whether one or more of the claimants was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the delay in service of a notice of claim, (3) whether the school district acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, and (4) whether the school district was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits

Here, Zachary and his mother did not proffer sufficient proof to establish a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon the appellant … . Furthermore, Zachary’s infancy, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . In addition, while a school official prepared an accident claim form the day of the incident and a school medical claim form was filled out the day following the incident, those reports, which merely indicated that Zachary hurt his right knee playing two-hand touch football during physical education class, did not establish that the appellant had actual knowledge within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, of the essential facts underlying the claims of negligent supervision and that the school field constituted a defective and dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the appellant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligent supervision and the alleged dangerous condition of the field … . Finally, Zachary and his mother failed to establish that the approximately one-month delay after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period would not substantially prejudice the appellant in maintaining a defense on the merits … . Matter of Manuel v Riverhead Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 02939, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

Same result in claim against a fire district alleging medical malpractice and negligence in response to an accident.  Matter of Snyder v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 02942, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact About Property Owner’s Constructive Notice of Lead Paint/Tenant by the Entirety Could Be Vicariously Liable

The First Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether defendant property owner, Robert Dvorak, had constructive notice of lead paint on the premises.  The court noted that the complaint should not have been dismissed against Diane Dvorak who also owned the property as a tenant by the entirety:

The motion court correctly found that plaintiffs raised questions of fact as to whether Robert A. Dvorak had constructive notice of lead-based paint in the Babylon premises, since they presented evidence that he entered the premises, made repairs, knew that the building was constructed before the banning of lead-based interior paint, was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and knew that a young child lived in the house …. .The motion court should not have granted summary judgment to Diane L. Dvorak, since, as a tenant by the entirety with her husband Robert, she may be held vicariously liable for his actions toward the property… . Rivera v Neighborhood Partnership Hous Dev Fund Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02873, 1st Dept 3-29-14

 

Plaintiff Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall/Therefore, There Was an Insufficient Showing of a Connection Between Alleged Building Code Violations and the Fall

The Second Department determined that alleged building code violations concerning the slope of stairs and the height of a handrail were not sufficiently connected to the accident to withstand summary judgment. Plaintiff testified she did not know the cause of her fall down the exterior stairs:

…[Plaintiff] testified that she did not know what caused her to fall and stated that she “pitch[ed]” forward … . … The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that the subject stairs were built in violation of the New Rochelle Building Code since, inter alia, the steps were sloped forward more than 2% and the handrail was lower than required. However, the plaintiff did not testify that she fell because of the slope of the steps or because she was unable to grasp the handrail due to its height. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to present evidence to connect the alleged building code violations to her fall … . Maglione v Seabreeze By Water Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02756, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Question of Fact Raised about Whether Injury at Summer Day Camp Resulted from Inadequate Supervision

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether games played at a summer day camp were adequately supervised.  The complaint alleged the injury was caused when plaintiff was pushed by an older child, and futher alleged the five teens who were supposed to be supervising the game were sitting together on a bench, not paying any attention to the game:

“[S]chools and camps owe a duty to supervise their charges and will only be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision” … . Whether such supervision was adequate and if, inadequate, whether it was a proximate cause of the subject injuries are generally questions for the trier of fact to resolve … . “An injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow [camper or] student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … .  Osmanzai v Sports & Arts in Schools Found Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02760, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”

The Second Department determined an allegation that a municipality planted a tree near a sidewalk and failed to maintain the tree roots did not support a negligence action based upon the creation of a dangerous condition:

…[T]he plaintiff alleged in his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars that the Town affirmatively created the subject dangerous condition through various specified acts of negligence. “[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . The Supreme Court, in denying the Town’s motion, concluded that it failed to meet its prima facie burden since it did not demonstrate that it did not affirmatively create the condition alleged. However, the Supreme Court erred in so concluding. The evidence submitted in support of the motion established that the planting of a tree or trees adjacent to the sidewalk where the accident occurred, and the alleged failure to maintain the roots of the tree or trees, would at most constitute nonfeasance, not affirmative negligence … . In opposition, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants …raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the condition alleged through an affirmative act of negligence. Lipari v Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 02755, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Abutting Landowners’ Responsibilties for Sidewalk Defects and Defects Relating to Covers and Gratings Explained

The Second Department explained the New York City law applicable to the responsibilty of abutting landowners with respect to sidewalks, and with respect to covers or gratings within or near the sidewalks:

…[L]iability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner … . However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk … . Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which was in effect at the time of the accident, shifts liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . Legislative enactments in derogation of the common law which create liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … . Hence, while section 7-210 expressly shifts tort liability to the abutting property owner for injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, it does not supersede pre-existing regulations such as 34 RCNY 2-07(b), which provides that “owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” (34 RCNY 2-07[b][1]…).  Roman v Bob’s Discount Furniture of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02762, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

, ,

Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)

The Second Department determined plaintiffs, who were injured when assaulted by NYC firefighters in a restaurant, had made allegations against the city and the fire department which raised questions of fact about negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. The firefighters, including supervisors, had just come from a New York City Fire Department annual dinner held at another restaurant.  Apparently two firefighters (Reilly and Warnock) attacked the plaintiffs after a drink had been accidentally spilled on a firefighter. The court explained that the doctrine of respondeat superior would not apply because the firefighters were not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the assault.  But the court determined the causes of action against the City defendants for negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention could go forward!

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment. Pursuant to this doctrine, the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business'” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Where, however, an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, the actions cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment … . In instances where vicarious liability for an employee’s torts cannot be imposed upon an employer, a direct cause of action against the employer for its own conduct, be it negligent hiring, supervision, or other negligence, may still be maintained … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging vicarious liability. The City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the tortious conduct of Reilly and Warnock was not within the scope of their employment … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . However, as to the causes of action alleging negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, the City defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that they did not know or have reason to know of Reilly’s or Warnock’s alleged propensity for assaultive conduct … . Furthermore, the City defendants failed to submit evidence demonstrating that any such alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs’ injuries … . Selmani City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02764, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

,

Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty

The Second Department determined that the town code provisions cited by plaintiffs did not impose a duty upon property owners to prevent vegetation from obstructing the view of drivers on a public road:

A property owner has no common-law duty to prevent vegetation growing on its property from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway … . Although such a duty may be imposed by a specific regulatory provision …, the ordinances … defendants allegedly violated, Code of the Town of Clarkstown §§ 216-4 and 250-6, were not intended to protect motorists from the hazards of vegetation which obstruct views at intersections of streets and driveways … . Accordingly, alleged noncompliance with the subject ordinances may not give rise to tort liability… . Preux v Dennis, 2014 NY Slip Op 02763, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

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