You are here: / Negligence
,

Driver’s Statement In a Plea Proceeding that She Did Not Have Permission to Use Defendant-Owner’s Vehicle at the Time of the Accident Insufficient to Overcome Statutory Presumption Of Operation with Owner’s Consent

The Second Department determined defendant (Tumbiolo) had not overcome the presumption that the driver (Commisso) of Tumbiolo’s vehicle was operating the vehicle with Tumbiolo’s permission:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission” … . “Although the rule is not absolute or invariable, in most cases uncontradicted disavowals of permission by both the owner of the vehicle and the driver will constitute substantial evidence negating permissive use and entitle the owner to summary judgment”… . * *

…[T]o the extent that Tumbiolo seeks to utilize a transcript of a plea proceeding dated October 21, 2011, wherein Commisso answered “[n]o” when asked if she had “permission” to “take” the subject vehicle, Commisso’s prior statement is not admissible under the provisions of CPLR 4517. Further, Commisso’s prior statement would be admissible as an “admission by a party” only as against Commisso, not as against the plaintiff … . Additionally, Tumbiolo failed to show that Commisso’s prior statement would be admissible as a declaration against pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest, which are exceptions to the rule against hearsay (… Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-403 [Farrell 11th ed 2008]). Diaz v Tumbiolo, 2013 NY Slip Op 07930, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

 

,

Defendant Not Prejudiced by Disposal of Damaged Goods (Spoliation)/Lost Profits Recoverable Where Purchase Price Set at Time of Damage

The Second Department affirmed several rulings made by the trial court in the damages aspect of a trial in which plaintiff alleged defendant’s malfunctioning sprinkler system ruined over $1 million worth of clothing stored in the building. The fact that plaintiff disposed of some of the damaged clothes and sold the remainder for salvage (spoliation) did not prejudice the defendant. And, the fact that a purchase price for some of the goods had already been set at the time of the loss allowed recovery for lost profits because the loss was not speculative:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiff from offering at trial any evidence of damages based upon spoliation of evidence. The defendant failed to establish that it was severely prejudiced by the disposal and sale of the damaged goods, fatally compromising its ability to mount a defense and necessitating such relief as a matter of fundamental fairness… . * * *

“Generally, where property is damaged but not destroyed, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value before the damage and the market value afterwards” … . The market value of a merchant’s goods is the price at which they could be replaced in the market, not the retail price at which they could be sold … . This is because allowing recovery of the retail value of damaged goods “would in effect overcompensate the merchant by allowing recovery of unearned profits” (2-248 Warren’s Negligence in New York Courts § 248.01[3][b] [2013]).

Here, however, the plaintiff was not holding the goods in stock in anticipation of trying to sell them at retail for “uncertain and indefinite profits which the plaintiff might have made” from their sale … . Rather, the goods were already under contract for a specified price and awaiting delivery. “[W]here . . . a loss of profits is the natural and probable consequence of the [defendant’s negligence], and their amount is shown with reasonable or sufficient certainty, there may be a recovery” … .  Ever Win Inc v 1-10 Indus Assoc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07933, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

Defendant Presented No Evidence When Defective Bar Stool Was Last Inspected and No Evidence the Defect Was Latent—Summary Judgment Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in a premises liability case.  Part of plaintiff’s finger was severed when he sat down on a bar stool.  There was a gap when the stool was lifted by the seat because the screws connecting the seat to the frame were either missing or loose:

In a premises liability case, the defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing that it did not create the defective condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence … . To provide constructive notice, “a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it… . “[C]onstructive notice will not be imputed where a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon reasonable inspection” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint since the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it maintained its premises in a reasonably safe condition and that it did not create the alleged defective condition or have actual or constructive notice of it … . The defendant failed to specify when it last inspected the subject stool prior to the accident. Additionally, the defendant failed to show that the alleged defective condition of the stool was latent. McGough v Cryan Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07944, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the placement of an amusement ride on the sidewalk created an inherently dangerous condition.  Plaintiff turned a corner and was injured when he bumped into the machine

[Defendants’] submissions failed to establish that the Mickey Mouse ride had been placed on the sidewalk in such a manner as to comply with the New York City Administrative Code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-136[a], [j]). Hence, they failed to exclude the possibility that the ride obstructed the sidewalk or otherwise created an inherently dangerous condition. Moreover, “the issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” …. . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . Here, in view of the alleged circumstances of the plaintiff’s accident, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the condition was open and obvious. Toro v Friedland Props Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07960, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

Condominium Owners Stated a Cause of Action Based Upon Third-Party-Beneficiary Status Re: a Contract Between the Village and an Engineer Hired to Inspect the Condominiums/The Contract Cause of Action Precluded the Professional Malpractice Cause of Action

The Second Department determined that a cause of action based upon the theory that condominium owners were third-party beneficiaries of a contract between a village and an engineer hired to inspect the condominiums should not have been dismissed.  It was alleged that the engineer approved the buildings (leading to the issuance of certificates of occupancy by the village) despite defects, including the absence of firewalls. Because a contract-based theory had been properly alleged, the related professional malpractice cause of action, sounding in negligence, should have been dismissed:

In determining third-party beneficiary status it is permissible for the court to look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the agreement . . . Moreover, it is well settled that the obligation to perform to the third party beneficiary need not be expressly stated in the contract” … . Here, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from the Village Attorney attesting that the Village engaged the defendant to perform the subject inspections for the benefit of the purchasers of the subject condominiums … . Moreover, “the identity of a third-party beneficiary need not be set forth in the contract or, for that matter, even be known as of the time of its execution” … .

The plaintiffs asserted in the complaint that the defendant “negligently performed inspection services relative to the homes in [Encore I] and [Encore II],” in that, inter alia, the defendant “fail[ed] to detect the existence of defects in the homes and appurtenant common areas.” “[M]erely alleging that a party breached a contract because it failed to act with due care will not transform a strict breach of contract claim into a negligence claim” … . This is because “[o]bligations that flow exclusively from a contract must be enforced as contractual duties under a theory of contract law” … . “[A] court enforcing a contractual obligation will ordinarily impose a contractual duty only on the promisor in favor of the promisee and any intended third-party beneficiaries” … . “Thus where a party is merely seeking to enforce its bargain, a tort claim will not lie'” .. . Taking into account the applicable factors, including “the nature of the injury, the manner in which the injury occurred and the resulting harm” … , it is clear that the plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries, are seeking enforcement of the defendant’s promise to properly inspect the construction of the subject homes. Thus, the only claim the plaintiffs have alleged against the defendant is one sounding in contract, and they have failed to state a cause of action sounding in tort. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Encore Lake Grove Homeowners Assn Inc v Cashin Assoc PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07932, Second Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony Would Be Cumulative—Only Testimony of a Party’s Own Witnesses Can Be Deemed Cumulative, Not, as Here, the Testimony of the Opposing Party’s Witnesses

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the trial court erred in refusing to grant the plaintiff’s request for a missing witness jury instruction.  Plaintiff claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. Questions were raised about whether plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident.  The defense failed to call any of the doctors hired by the defense to examine plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s request for the missing witness charge was denied on the ground the defense-doctors’ testimony would be merely cumulative.  The Court of Appeals ruled that testimony can be deemed cumulative only with respect to a party’s own witnesses, not with respect to witnesses under the opposing party’s control:

The appropriate analysis is found in Leahy v Allen (221 AD2d 88 [3d Dept 1996]), in which the [3rd] Department held that “one person’s testimony properly may be considered cumulative of another’s only when both individuals are testifying in favor of the same party” (id. at 92), noting that to hold “otherwise would lead to an anomalous result.  Indeed, if the testimony of a defense physician who had examined a plaintiff and confirmed the plaintiff’s assertion of a serious injury were deemed to be cumulative to the evidence offered by the plaintiff, thereby precluding the missing witness charge, there would never be an occasion to invoke such charge” (id.).  Accordingly, our holding is that an uncalled witness’s testimony may properly be considered cumulative only when it is cumulative of testimony or other evidence favoring the party controlling the uncalled witness.

In short, a witness’s testimony may not be ruled cumulative simply on the ground that it would be cumulative of the opposing witness’s testimony.  Because the record indicates that the latter was Supreme Court’s rationale in this case, Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s request for a missing witness charge. De Vito v Feliciano, 195, CtApp 11-26-13

 

A Prank Played Upon Defendant Driver by a Passenger Warranted Instructing the Jury on the Emergency Doctrine

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly charged the jury on the emergency doctrine.  A jury found that the defendant was not negligent in the operation of her vehicle. A passenger in defendant’s car had pulled the string on her bikini top causing the top to fall off.  The court wrote:

In assessing the propriety of whether to instruct a jury on the emergency doctrine, the trial court must “make the threshold determination that there is some reasonable view of the evidence supporting the occurrence of a qualifying emergency’” … . “Only then is a jury instructed to consider whether a defendant was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of the actor’s own making and, if so, whether [the] defendant’s response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person” … . “The emergency instruction is, therefore, properly charged where the evidence supports a finding that the party requesting the charge was confronted by a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration’” … .

Here, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorably toward giving the requested emergency doctrine instruction to the jury” … , based upon [defendant’s] testimony, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that her conduct was the product of a “ sudden and unexpected circumstance’” … . Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s determination, [defendant’s] general awareness that …a passenger in her vehicle…had engaged in certain distracting conduct while in the car would not preclude a jury from deciding that [defendant] did not anticipate that he would suddenly pull the strings on her bikini top, thereby causing the top to fall and her breasts to be exposed … . It was for the jury to find whether [defendant] was faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency not of her own making and, if so, whether her response to the situation was that of a reasonably prudent person… .  Pelletier v Lahm, 2013 NY Slip Op 07718, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”

In a personal injury case involving a collision between defendant’s car and plaintiff’s bicycle, the Second Department determined that summary judgment should not have been granted to the plaintiff because there existed a question of fact about plaintiff’s comparative negligence.  Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff “to the extent that the defendant is liable:”

In a personal injury action, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, 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 …, since there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident … . Thus, the issue of the defendant’s liability, a component of which is the apportionment of fault …, cannot be determined as a matter of law until it is decided whether any culpable conduct on the plaintiff’s part contributed to the happening of the accident. For this reason, the Supreme Court order granting the plaintiff’s motion “to the extent that the defendant is liable,” while directing that the “plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any, shall be decided by a jury,” was internally inconsistent.  Lanigan v Timmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 07711, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against City for Negligent Failure to Provide Emergency Medical Services—No “Special Relationship” Alleged

The Second Department determined a complaint against the City alleging a negligent failure to provide emergency services (resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent) should have been dismissed.  The court explained that the criteria for a “special relationship” with the city with respect to responding to a call for medical help had not been met:

As a general rule, “a municipality may not be held liable to a person injured by the breach of a duty owed to the general public, such as a duty to provide police protection, fire protection or ambulance services” … . There is, however, a “narrow class of cases in which [the courts] have recognized an exception to this general rule and have upheld tort claims based upon a special relationship’ between the municipality and the claimant” … . Such special relationship imposes a specific duty upon the municipality to act on behalf of the claimant … . As articulated by the Court of Appeals in Cuffy v City of New York, “[t]he elements of this special relationship’ are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking”… .

Here, the complaint fails to allege any facts tending to show that there was any “direct contact” between the decedent and the defendants or that there was any “justifiable reliance” on any promise made to the decedent by the defendants. Accordingly, the complaint does not state facts from which it could be found that there was a special relationship between the decedent and the defendants necessary to assert a negligence cause of action against the defendants … . In the absence of any allegation of such a relationship, the complaint cannot state a viable cause of action against the City based on its alleged negligence in failing to send an ambulance to the decedent’s home.  Freeman v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 07707, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

No Legal Duty Owed Independent of Contract—Negligence Cause of Action Dismissed

In the context of the dismissal of a tort action against Ferguson Electric Service Company after a building fire, the Fourth Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to an action in tort:

“It is a well-established principle that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated . . . This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract” … .  Plaintiffs cannot maintain their tort cause of action because Ferguson … owed no legal duty that is independent of the contract … .  Moreover, “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party…”… . Niagara Foods, Inc…v Ferguson Electric Service Company, Inc…, 1044, 4th Dept 11-15-13

 

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