You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this forklift-accident case, determined the fact that the rear-view mirrors for the forklift were optional was not a design defect, and the landlord, the Port Authority, was immune from the negligence action alleging a failure to properly inspect the forklift:

… Unicarriers [defendant forklift manufacturer] established … the plaintiff’s employer was thoroughly knowledgeable about forklifts and knew that mirrors were available, since it maintained more than 100 forklifts in operation in New York, and the brochure for the forklift listed rearview mirrors as an optional feature. Unicarriers also established that the forklift was not unreasonably dangerous without backup mirrors and that the plaintiff’s employer was in the best position to balance the benefits and the risks of not having mirrors on the forklift … . * * *

… [T]he Port Authority established, prima facie, that its alleged failure to properly inspect the forklift and its issuance of a Port Authority license plate were governmental functions. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the forklift inspections performed by the Port Authority and the issuance of the license plate were an exercise of the Port Authority’s police power for the protection and safety of the public rather than any authority conferred by a landlord-tenant relationship … . The actions of the Port Authority did not create a special duty toward the plaintiff because the inspections were designed to protect public safety rather than the safety of particular individuals … . Strassburger v Unicarriers Ams. Corps., 2024 NY Slip Op 01742, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Here in this forklift accident case, the fact that rear-view mirrors were optional was not a designe defect. The relevant criteria are explained.

Practice Point: Here the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the landlord for JFK Airport, was exercising a governmental function when inspecting the forklift and therefore was immune from suit, criteria explained.

 

, , , ,

IT WAS ALLEGEDLY EVIDENT FROM THE EMPLOYEE’S JOB APPLICATION THAT HE HAD BEEN IN PRISON; THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION; THE CORRECTION LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action against defendant LLC stemming from an altercation between plaintiff and the LLC’s employee (McIntosh) should not have been dismissed. It was allegedly evident from McIntosh’s employment application that he had been in prison:

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the LLC “should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . It is well settled that “an employer has a duty to investigate a prospective employee when it knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate that prospective employee” … . McIntosh’s handwritten job application provided facts that should have led the LLC to investigate, as he indicated that he worked at the address of a state prison, he earned a “stipend” instead of the typical hourly wage, and one of his supervisors was a corrections officer, or “C.O.” Although “the depth of inquiry prior to hiring, irrespective of convictions, may vary in reasonable proportion to the responsibilities of the proposed employment,” the record shows that the LLC made no effort to investigate … . Its owner-witness admitted that no background check was performed. She did not know whether a restaurant manager called McIntosh’s past employers, and she had no knowledge of his criminal background, as would have been revealed by a call to the past employer … . Contrary to the LLC’s contention, the Correction Law does not prohibit consideration of a job applicant’s prior convictions, but instead provides a balancing test to determine whether there was a “direct relationship between” a prior offense and the job or whether the employment “would involve an unreasonable risk . . . to the safety or welfare of . . . the general public” (Correction Law §§ 752[1]- Darbeau v 136 W. 3rd St., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01672, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Where an applicant’s job application indicates the applicant had been incarcerated, an employer’s failure to investigate may support a negligent hiring and supervision cause of action. The Correction Law does not prohibit an inquiry into prior convictions.

 

, , , , ,

SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the demand for disclosure of SM’s medical records was properly denied because SM had not waived the physician-patient privilege, but the request for an in camera review of the records for nonmedical information should have been granted. SM has been treated by defendant New York City Health + Hospital/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH) shortly before SM stabbed infant plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged NYCHH should have reported SM and detained her or taken some other measures to protect infant plaintiff:

Infant plaintiff and her father allege that NYCHH’s employees negligently treated SM when she presented to the hospital on April 26 and April 27, 2016, shortly before she stabbed the infant plaintiff and brother, resulting in the brother’s death. They allege that SM had a history of mental illness for which she had been treated by NYCHH on “scores of previous occasions,” and that NYCHH failed to detain SM, call a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, or “take any other action to protect” the infant plaintiff. SM, who is currently incarcerated, has not waived the physician-patient privilege and is believed to be unable or unwilling to do so.

Supreme Court properly determined that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) does not apply to allow disclosure of SM’s hospital records in the interests of justice, absent SM’s consent or express or implied waiver of the physician-patient privilege provided by CPLR 4504, 4507 … . … Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ alternative request for in camera review to determine whether the records include information of a nonmedical nature, such as observations of SM’s conduct, language, and appearance and factual matters, which is subject to disclosure … . S.M. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01689, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Although medical records are protected from disclosure by the patient-physician privilege, relevant nonmedical, factual information in the records may be disclosed pursuant to an in camera review.

 

, ,

THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the rear driver in this rear-end collision case was negligent. The rear-driver alleged plaintiff’s vehicle stopped for no apparent reason when no cars were in front of it:

“‘A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle'” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). “‘There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” …. “‘[N]ot every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision'” … . Laureano v EAN Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01538, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: The rear driver in a rear-end collision case is not always negligent. Here there was a question of fact whether the front driver stopped suddenly for no apparent reason.

 

,

A DEFECT IN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRWAY WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED THE TRIP AND FALL; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE COURT NOTED THAT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION MAY STILL BE DANGEROUS AND THE QUESTION IS USUALLY FOR A JURY TO DECIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department,, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this stairway trip and fall case should not have been granted. The court noted that a condition which is open and obvious may still be dangerous. Here it was alleged a defect on the edge of the top step caused the fall:

While there is “no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous” … , when a dangerous condition exists on the premises, proof that the 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” … . “The determination of whether 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” … . “The issue of whether a condition is open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is case-specific, and usually a question of fact for a jury” … .

Here, the defendants’ submissions, including photographs of the alleged defect, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the allegedly defective condition was open and obvious … . While the plaintiff testified at her deposition that she had previously used the stairway and observed the allegedly defective condition, she also testified that she did not inspect the condition each time that she had used the stairway and that she had not noticed that the condition had worsened since she last observed it. Johnson v 1451 Assoc., L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 01537, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: An open and obvious condition can still be a dangerous condition. Whether a condition is open and obvious and whether it is inherently dangerous are usually fact-specific questions for a jury.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE REAR DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT, THE ALLEGATION THE FRONT DRIVER SUDDENLY STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant rear driver alleged plaintiff stopped for a yellow light, which did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s negligence:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A sudden stop of the lead vehicle may constitute a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision” … . “But ‘vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows'” … .

Here, in support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit that established, prima facie, that the defendant driver was negligent when he struck the rear of the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle, and that the defendant driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver’s explanation for striking the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear, set forth in his affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, that the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped abruptly at a yellow light in front of the intersection’s thick white stop line, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant driver’s negligence or whether the plaintiff’s actions contributed to the happening of the accident … . Yawagyentsang v Safeway Constr. Enters., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01580, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: There are more appellate decisions of late finding questions of fact about whether the rear-driver is negligent in a rear-end collision based upon the allegation the front-driver stopped suddenly for no apparent reason. Here the rear driver alleged the front driver stopped suddenly for a yellow light. That was not enough to raise a question of fact.

 

,

PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER’S PRIVATE NUISANCE, PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED NOXIOUS ODORS FROM DEFENDANT’S LANDFILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff real estate developer causes of action against defendant landfill operation for private nuisance, public nuisance and negligence, based upon noxious odors from the landfill, should have been dismissed: Plaintiff alleged the odors made it difficult to sell homes and reduced the value of properties in the vicinity of the landfill:

… [A] private nuisance is one that “threatens one person or . . . relatively few” … . … [P]laintiff’s allegations indicate that the noxious odors affected a large number of community residents and, therefore, we conclude that plaintiff’s cause of action for private nuisance must be dismissed … . …

… [A] public nuisance consists of “a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right of the public, thereby offending public morals, interfering with the use by the public of a public place or endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons” … . “A public nuisance is actionable by a private person only if it is shown that the person suffered special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large” … .

Here, plaintiff alleged that it suffered a special injury because it “suffered lost profit[s] and other substantial economic loss,” including “irreparable damage to its reputation in the community as a residential home builder.” … [P]laintiff did not allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance cause of action. It failed to allege that it sustained any harm or damages that were “different in kind, not merely in degree,” from the community at large … .

* * * [P]laintiff “ha[s] not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors” and, “likewise, the economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiff[‘s] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law” … . William Metrose Ltd. Builder/Developer v Waste Mgt. of N.Y., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01458, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Here noxious odors from a landfill did not support causes of action for private nuisance, public nuisance or negligence, criteria explained.

 

,

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR A HOME INVASION DID NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners should not have been awarded summary judgment in this home invasion case. The fact that plaintiff was specifically targeted did not preclude a finding that building security was inadequate:

Plaintiff was the victim of a home invasion of his apartment in a building owned and operated by defendants. The incident began when someone knocked on plaintiff’s apartment door and asked by name for his niece, who also lived in the apartment. When plaintiff looked through the peephole, he thought he saw a young woman, but the peephole was blurry, as it had been since plaintiff had moved in three or four years earlier. Plaintiff also testified that the chain guard on the door did not function properly. When plaintiff opened the door slightly, the young woman and a man he had not seen through the peephole pushed their way into the apartment and pistol whipped him. After demanding $5,000 that had purportedly been sent to plaintiff’s niece, the two assailants assaulted plaintiff for an extended period and looted the apartment before leaving.

Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as evidence that an attack was targeted toward a particular person does not sever the proximate cause link as a matter of law in cases alleging negligent security … . In light of the record evidence that the building’s locks were malfunctioning, and that plaintiff’s apartment peephole and chain lock were defective, proximate cause is for the factfinder to decide … . Cabrera-Perez v Promesa Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01338, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: The fact that plaintiff was deliberately and specifically targeted for a home invasion did not preclude a finding that malfunctioning locks and a defective peephole constituted a proximate cause of the invasion and consequent injury.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXPERIENCED GOLFER WHO WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TOURNAMENT, ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDING IN A GOLF CART (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff golfer assumed the risk of being struck by a golf ball during a golf tournament. Supreme Court and the dissenters concluded there was a question of fact whether the design of the defendant golf course unreasonably increased the risk:

Plaintiff was riding in a golf cart on the seventh hole fairway when he was hit by a ball struck by defendant Justin Hubbard, who had just teed off from the third hole. Both the third and seventh holes are over 400 yards in length. The fairways on each hole run parallel, in part, in the area in front of the third tee, and that part of the seventh fairway approaching the green, which from a vantage point on the fairway, is adjacent to and to the right of the third tee.  * * *

… [I]t is well established that “being hit without warning by a shanked shot” is “a commonly appreciated risk” of participating in the sport … . ” ‘[G]olfers are deemed to assume the risks of open topographical features of a golf course’ “… , and “evidence establishing that the proximity of [a tee] to [a different] green and hole was open and obvious” will preclude liability against a golf course for injuries sustained as a result of such proximity … . Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01366, Third Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: The majority concluded plaintiff golfer assumed the risk of being struck by a golf ball. Supreme Court and the two dissenters argued the design of defendant golf course unreasonably increased the risk.

 

, ,

THE DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER WERE OVERLY BROAD AND UNDULY BURDENSOME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK IN THEIR ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discovery demands in this negligent supervision action against a school district, alleging the sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher, were overly broad and unduly burdensome. Therefore the demands should have been struck in their entirety with no attempt to prune them:

… [A] “‘ …party is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure'” … . “Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the Supreme Court may issue a protective order striking a notice for discovery and inspection that is palpably improper” … . A notice for discovery and inspection is palpably improper if it is overbroad, burdensome, fails to specify with reasonable particularity many of the documents demanded, or seeks irrelevant or confidential information (see CPLR 3120[2] …). “Where the discovery demands are overbroad, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” … .

Here, many of the plaintiff’s discovery demands were palpably improper in that they were overbroad and burdensome … . The plaintiff’s discovery demands broadly sought, among other things, documents pertaining to any complaint of sexual abuse by any employee of the District from January 1, 1997, to the present and any suspected romantic or sexual relationship between any teacher and any student at the school from 1990 to the present. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the District to comply with the plaintiff’s first and second demands for discovery and granted the District’s application pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order striking those demands in their entirety instead of pruning them … . Ferrara v Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 01293, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: In this negligent supervision action against a school district alleging sexual abuse by a teacher plaintiff’s discovery demands included “documents pertaining to any complaint of sexual abuse by any employee of the District from January 1, 1997, to the present and any suspected romantic or sexual relationship between any teacher and any student at the school from 1990 to the present”. The demand was overly broad and unduly burdensome and was struck in its entirety.

 

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