You are here: / Negligence
, ,

In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action, the Legal Malpractice Case Alleging Failure to Adequately Investigate Can Go Forward

Plaintiff was attacked and injured in the lobby of his building.  He hired an attorney to bring a premises liability action.  The action was ultimately settled, but plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against the defendant attorney alleging the attorney did not adequately investigate the security of the building.  The First Department determined that plaintiff, who was described as unsophisticated in legal matters, had stated a cause of action because the defendant attorney admitted he had relied entirely on a brief conversation with the plaintiff about the security situation at the building before recommending settlement.  The First Department explained the relevant principles as follows:

For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, “a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” … . A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed “settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … . * * *

In this specific case, given plaintiff’s lack of sophistication and his limited education, defendant’s statement that he never conducted any investigation, except for speaking to plaintiff for a very limited time, raises a question of fact as to whether defendant adequately informed himself about the facts of the case before he conveyed the settlement offer. Furthermore, defendant says he told plaintiff, when he conveyed the settlement offer, that it was a “difficult liability case.” It is difficult to understand, on the record before us, how he made that assessment without going to the building, or speaking to the superintendent. Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 05955, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

, ,

No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, the Second Department determined the action brought on behalf of a child who died in school after suffering an allergic reaction was correctly dismissed with respect to the Department of Education (DOE) and should have been dismissed with respect to the school and the attending nurse who was tasked with monitoring the child at school.  The lengthy opinion deals in depth with many topics including:  the DOE’s duty, the school’s duty, the nurse’s duty, the finding that the nurse was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, and the proximate cause issue raised by the inability to determine what caused the allergic reaction.  The child was autistic and suffered from asthma and numerous severe allergies.  The DOE developed a plan (Individualized Education Program) which involved placement of the child in a private school equipped to care for children with special needs and the provision of a nurse who was with the child continuously during the school day.  The Second Department treated all the issues (including the adequacy of the medical care provided by the nurse) exhaustively and determined no questions of fact had been raised about the negligence of any of the defendants. Begley v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05867, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

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

 

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