You are here: / Negligence
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHICH STEP SHE SLIPPED AND FELL FROM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE ALL THE STEPS WERE UNLEVEL AND SLOPING; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WAS LATENT AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of her stairway fall and defendant did not demonstrate the nonlevel and sloping condition of the steps was latent and could not have been discovered:

… [T]he plaintiff testified that her fall was caused by the fact that the “stairs were not level . . . not straight.” Although the plaintiff testified that she might have lost her balance on either the fourth step from the top of the staircase or the fourth step from the bottom of the staircase, the report of the plaintiff’s expert witness … stated that the treads on the staircase were “uneven and pitched forward,” creating an “inherent walking hazard,” and that the “out-of-level and sloping condition” affected “the entire staircase.”

* * * “In moving for summary judgment on the ground that [a] defect was latent, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that the defect was indeed latent—i.e., that it was not visible or apparent and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection”…..  Here, the evidence proffered in support of the defendant’s motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the nonlevel and sloping condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall amounted to a latent condition and could not have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection. Toro v McComish, 2024 NY Slip Op 02945, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Here the unlevel and sloping condition of the steps in the stairway where plaintiff fell was not shown to be latent and undiscoverable upon inspection.

 

, ,

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice claim against the NYC Transit Authority should not have been granted because the motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Although physical incapacity can be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a notice of claim withing 90 days, it does not toll the period for making a timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

The court erred … in concluding that plaintiff’s hospitalization from the February 12, 2020 accident until April 11, 2020 rendered timely plaintiff’s January 25, 2021 notice of claim upon defendant NYC Transit Authority … . Although physical incapacity may be properly considered as a reasonable excuse under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for the failure to timely file a notice of claim … , it is relevant only upon timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim “made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued” … . Melgarejo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02892, First Dept 5-28-24

Practice Point: A period of physical incapacity may be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, but it does not toll the one year and 90 day statute of limitations for filing a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

,

THE “SHEPPARD-MOBLEY” BAR TO A MOTHER’S RECOVERY FOR EMOTIONAL HARM IF HER BABY IS BORN ALIVE DOES NOT APPLY TO A LACK-OF-INFORMED CONSENT, AS OPPOSED TO A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE MOTHER ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO TWO UNSUCCESSFUL VACUUM EXTRACTION ATTEMPTS WHICH PRECEDED THE C-SECTION; HER BABY DIED EIGHT DAYS AFTER BIRTH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff’s lack-of-informed-consent cause of action properly survived defendant doctor’s (Grimaldi’s) motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff mother alleged she did not consent to the two unsuccessful vacuum extraction attempts which preceded the C-section delivery of her baby. The baby died eight days after birth. The First Department questioned the continued relevance of Sheppard-Mobley v King, 4 NY3d 627 (2005) which held, in an action for medical malpractice, mother cannot recover for emotional harm if the baby is born alive. The First Department distinguished Sheppard-Mobley on the ground that the instant action alleges a lack of informed consent, not ordinary medical malpractice:

This appeal concerns, among other issues, whether Sheppard-Mobley v King (4 NY3d 627 [2005]) (Sheppard-Mobley) and related cases bar a plaintiff mother’s claim for emotional harm resulting from lack of informed consent for certain prenatal procedures. We hold that they do not.

Sheppard-Mobley held that a mother’s damages for emotional harm could not be recovered on a cause of action for ordinary medical malpractice where the child was born alive and in the absence of independent physical injury to the mother. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim based on lack of informed consent—a separate theory of recovery that, under the circumstances, implicates different interests than the ordinary medical malpractice claim at issue in Sheppard-Mobley—is distinguishable.

In addition, assuming [for the sake of argument] the rule of Sheppard-Mobley applies to claims for ordinary medical malpractice and lack of informed consent alike, we are of the opinion that the rule should be revisited. * * * Now almost 20 years after Sheppard-Mobley, further consideration is warranted with respect to whether a mother may recover for emotional damages resulting from physical injuries to her fetus or infant during pregnancy, labor, or delivery caused by medical malpractice or lack of informed consent. SanMiguel v Grimaldi, 2024 NY Slip Op 02881, First Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: Here the First Department held that the bar to mother’s recovery for emotional harm if her baby is born alive does not apply to a lack-of-informed consent, as opposed to a medical malpractice, cause of action.

 

,

FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS A PATIENT’S RISK OF FALLING AND NEED FOR SUPERVISION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was blind, fell from an examining table when the nurse stepped away to throw away gauze in a nearby trash can:

Allegations that a health care provider improperly assessed a patient’s risk of falling and need for supervision or restraint, in light of his or her medical condition, “implicate questions of medical competence or judgment linked to . . . treatment” (Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp., 88 NY2d at 788) and, therefore, sound in medical malpractice … . Here, the essence of the allegations was that the defendants were negligent in their assessment of “the level of supervision, nursing care, and security required for [Davis],” in light of her physical condition and the administration of narcotic medications … . Such allegations sound in medical malpractice as opposed to ordinary negligence … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to serve a certificate of merit and notice of medical malpractice and to transfer the action from the general negligence part to the medical malpractice part. Snow v Gotham Staffing, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02833, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: Failure to properly assess a patient’s risk of falling and need for supervision sounds in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence.

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff tripped and fell on a road defect that abutted a curb where students were picked up and dropped off by parents:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … . “[A] school’s duty to supervise is generally viewed as being coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child,” and therefore, “[w]hen that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “[W]hile a school has no duty to prevent injury to schoolchildren released in a safe and anticipated manner, the school breaches a duty when it releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was released from school without adequate supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting they had a hand in creating … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their negligent supervision over the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained … . Levy v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02807, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A school’s duty to supervise students may extend to areas outside the school, i.e., the area where students are picked up and dropped off by parents.

 

,

THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file and serve late notices of claim in this construction accident case should not have been granted. Although there was a report about the incident, nothing in the report made a connection between petitioner’s injuries and negligence on the part of the city defendants.  Another incident report made by one municipal entity (MTA Capital Construction) cannot be imputed to other municipal entities:

The evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City, NYC Department of Design and Construction, NYC Department of Transportation, and New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter collectively the City appellants) or the MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “‘A report which describes the circumstances of the accident without making a connection between the petitioner’s injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the public corporation will not be sufficient to constitute actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim'” …  The incident report upon which the petitioner relied did not connect his injuries to negligent conduct on the part of the City appellants or the MTA, and the incident report, prepared by MTA Capital Construction, cannot be imputed to other municipal entities … . Moreover, the petitioner testified at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that only his employer’s personnel were present at the construction site when the accident occurred.

The petitioner also failed to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve the notices of claim. The petitioner’s ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . Furthermore, the petitioner did not adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim that he was unable to timely serve the notices of claim because he was seeking medical treatment and recovering from medical procedures, as he provided evidence only that he was unable to work for intermittent periods during the eight-month interval between the date of the accident and the service of the notices of claim … . Matter of Almeida v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02699, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In order for an incident report to provide notice of a potential lawsuit against a municipality such that a late notice of claim will be excused, the report must connect the injuries to negligence on the part of the municipal defendants (not the case here).

Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of a claim against a municipality, an incident report created by one municipal entity will not be deemed to have provided notice of the incident to other municipal entities.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendants’ medical expert in this medical malpractice case did not address all the malpractice allegations in the pleadings:

“Medical expert affirmations that fail to address the essential factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint or bill of particulars fail to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . Bare conclusory assertions that a defendant did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice, with no factual relationship to the alleged injury, do not establish that the cause of action has no merit so as to entitle a defendant to summary judgment … .

Here, the affirmation of the defendants’ fetal medicine expert was insufficient to establish the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice by [two defendants].. The affirmation failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in preterm labor … , and whether the preterm delivery could have been prevented … . Neumann v Silverstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 02712, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: In a med mal case, if the defense expert does not address all the allegations of malpractice the defense motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

, ,

TENANT’S ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR FAILING TO EVICT THE TENANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a tenant’s (Girard’s) attack on plaintiff was not foreseeable. Therefore the negligence action against the landlord for failing to evict Girard was dismissed:

Defendant demonstrated … that it was not liable for third-party defendant Girard’s attack on plaintiff because it was not reasonably foreseeable … . No evidence was presented that Girard had engaged in criminal conduct prior to the attack or that he was violent, had a propensity toward violence, or had threatened any tenants of the building. Inconsiderate behavior, such as playing loud music at all hours, engaging in loud arguments with his sister in the apartment, and banging on the apartment walls, is insufficient to have placed defendant on notice that Girard would stab plaintiff in response to plaintiff’s noise complaints … . While it was conceivable that the dispute might escalate into violence, “conceivability is not the equivalent of foreseeability” … . Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant was negligent in not taking steps to evict Girard prior to the attack…. . Goris v New York City Hous. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02661, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: Here the tenant who attacked plaintiff, although loud and argumentative, had never been violent. Therefore the tenant’s attack was not foreseeable and the landlord could not be held liable in negligence for failing to evict the tenant.

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF FLOOR WAX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the area where she slipped and fell was excessively waxed:

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact as to “the negligent application of wax . . . by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present” … . Plaintiff testified that the waxy substance on the floor was on the side of her clothing and that where she fell there was an indentation into the substance. This testimony is sufficient to establish an issue of fact as to whether wax was negligently applied … . This evidence “conflicted with [defendants’] assertions that the area was never waxed, creating triable issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment” … . Scaccia v Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02677, First Dept 5-14-23

Practice Point: The negligent application of floor wax can result in liability for a slip and fall.

 

, ,

IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the release signed by plaintiff after a car accident was the result of mutual mistake. At the time plaintiff signed the release it appeared her injuries, including whiplash, involved only her cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. After signing the release she was diagnosed as having suffered a mild traumatic brain injury:

… [I]nasmuch as the submissions indicate that plaintiff had been diagnosed with neck and back injuries only at the time she signed the release and that plaintiff’s symptoms were not medically attributed to postconcussive syndrome until after the execution of the release with additional uncertainty in the interim, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether, at the time the release was executed, the parties were under “[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury,” i.e., a traumatic brain injury … . We therefore … reinstate the complaint. DiDomenico v McWhorter, 2024 NY Slip Op 02634, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: A release signed when both parties are not aware of an existing injury may be invalid as the result of mutual mistake.

 

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