You are here: / Negligence

Rear-End Collision Warranted Summary Judgment on Liability

In a rear-end collision case, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability should have been granted:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . “A claim that the driver of the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the defendant’s vehicle struck his vehicle in the rear as the plaintiff’s vehicle was slowing down for traffic in front of it … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “[V]ehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” … . Robayo v Aghaabdul, 2013 NY slip Op 05889, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Question of Fact Whether City Had Notice of Pothole in Bicycle-Injury Case; Big Apple Pothole Map May Have Provided Notice

The Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a pothole bicycle-injury case.  The court determined that there was a question of fact about exactly where the pothole was and whether it was indicated on the Department of Transportation’s Big Apple Pothole map:

…”[W]here a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute such as Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2), it may not be subjected to liability for injuries arising from a defective roadway unless it has received timely prior written notice of the defective condition” … . A Big Apple map submitted to the Department of Transportation may serve as prior written notice of a defective condition … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect. Where, as here, “there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiff’s fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury”… Chia v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05873, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

Question of Fact Whether ¾ Inch Height Differential Was “Trivial”

In a slip and fall case, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined there was a question of fact whether a defect, a ¾” height differential in a walkway, was “trivial:”

“Generally, whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury unless the defect is trivial as a matter of law” … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstances of the injury'” … . There is no “minimal dimension test” or per se rule that a defect, in order to be actionable, must be a certain height or depth … .

Here, in support of their motion, the Jamaica Seven defendants submitted evidence, including photographs, which showed that the bricks within the section of the entranceway where the plaintiff tripped were depressed below the adjacent public sidewalk, causing a height differential of at least 3/4 of an inch. This evidence, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, was insufficient to demonstrate as a matter of law that the alleged defect was trivial and, therefore, not actionable… . Cardona-Torres v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05870, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff was an experienced boxer and was injured when he stepped into a gap (about which he was aware) under the canvas surface of the boxing ring:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This includes risks associated with any open and obvious conditions of the playing field, including risks arising from “less than optimal conditions” … . Thus, “when an experienced athlete . . . is aware of the existence of a particular condition on the premises where the activity is to be performed, and actually appreciates or should reasonably appreciate the potential danger it poses, yet participates in the activity despite this awareness, he or she must be deemed to have assumed the risk of injury which flows therefrom” … . Baccari v KCOR, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05865, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

Plaintiff Unable to Identify Cause of Fall

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a slip and fall action against defendant (Trump Village) should have been dismissed because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

” [A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation'” … . Although “[p]roximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, by inference from the circumstances of the accident, . . . mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when there could have been many possible causes, is fatal to a cause of action” … . Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused a trip and fall accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Ash v city of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05864, Second Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Slip and Fall

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord in a slip and fall case, the Second Department explained:

“An out-of-possession landlord’s duty to repair a dangerous condition on leased premises is imposed by statute or regulation, by contract, or by a course of conduct” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was an out-of-possession landlord, that it was not contractually obligated to maintain the subject parking lot, that it did not endeavor to maintain the subject parking lot, and that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty by virtue of any applicable statute or regulation … . Castillo v Wil-Cor Realty Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05871, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Action By Israeli Citizens Against Bank Which Allegedly Funded Groups that Committed Bombings and Rocket Attacks Allowed to Go Forward in New York Applying Israeli Negligence Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department determined that Israeli law should be applied in a civil action by 50 Israeli citizens who were injured or who represent persons killed in bombings and rocket attacks carried out in Israel by Palestine Islamic Jihad and Hamas.  The opinion includes very detailed explanations of American and Israeli tort law (including the different roles of foreseeability in each), the factors that determine choice of law, and forum non conveniens. The action is against the Bank of China (BOC) and alleges the bank was negligent in supplying funds to the groups which carried out the bombings and attacks.  BOC argued that no duty ran from the bank directly to those injured by the intentional torts of others.  But, under Israeli law, a duty arises when an act is foreseeable and when an act violates a statute.  The court explained:

…[T]he Israeli law of negligence “differs slightly” from New York law in that duty is divided into fact and notional duty and depends on foreseeability …. …[T]he analysis of whether a duty is owed involves an inquiry into whether a reasonable person could have foreseen the occurrence of the damage under the particular circumstances alleged; whether as a matter of policy, a reasonable person ought to have foreseen the occurrence of the particular damage; and whether the occurrence causing the damage was foreseeable … . This differs from New York law, where the foreseeability of harm does not define duty and, absent a duty running directly to the injured person, there is no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm … .

In addition, the claim of breach of statutory duty …has no equivalent in New York law. … Israel’s tort of breach of a statutory duty “acts as a civil private right of action for the violation of any enactment” issued by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant was under a duty imposed by an enactment, the enactment was created for the benefit of the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach caused an injury to the plaintiff of the type that the enactment was intended to prevent …. …[T]he enactments at issue are section 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, sections 145 and 148 of the Penal Law, and section 85 of the Defense Regulations (Emergency Period), all of which prohibit aiding and abetting terrorism, specifically by the giving of money to any terrorist organization, the payment of any contribution to any unlawful association including terrorist groups, and the performance of any service for or holding of funds of any unlawful organization … . Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd, 2013 NY Slip Op 05858, 1st Dept 9-17-13.

 

, ,

In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection Sustained, Lawyer Admonished and Curative Instruction Given

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of a mistrial in a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff was injured playing basketball. Plaintiff objected to remarks made by defense counsel in summation which erroneously implied that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied.  The trial judge sustained the objection, admonished the lawyer, and gave a curative instruction. After the verdict for the defendant, Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial:

The Supreme Court erred in, in effect, granting the plaintiffs’ application for a mistrial since the court had previously properly sustained objections to the subject summation comments, openly admonished counsel, and provided curative instructions, thereby correcting any possible prejudice resulting from the subject summation comments … . Richardson v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05810, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, ,

Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly dismissed the complaint in a medical malpractice action because the plaintiffs refused to identify the mohel who had performed the circumcision of infant plaintiff.  In finding dismissal of the entire complaint an appropriate sanction, the court wrote:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . “The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious”… . Further, the court can infer that a party is acting willfully and contumaciously through his or her repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders … .  Silberstein v Maimonides Med Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 05813, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Out-of-Possession Landlord—Injury Caused by Defect in Floor

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to an out-of-possession landlord (Hudson).  Plaintiff alleged a defect in a concrete floor caused his injury.  The Second Department wrote:

An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a contractual provision placing the duty to repair on the landlord, or a course of conduct by the landlord giving rise to a duty … .

Here, the Hudson defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the code provisions relied upon by the plaintiff do not constitute statutes imposing liability, that the lease placed the responsibility to repair the floor defect on Kawasaki, and that the Hudson defendants did not, through a course of conduct, assume any duty to repair the alleged defect in the floor… . Volpe v Hudson View Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY slip Op 05814, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

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