You are here: / Negligence
,

Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed

In affirming the grant of a motion to serve a late notice of claim, the Fourth Department explained the relevant principles:

A notice of claim must be served within 90 days after the claim accrues, although a court may grant leave extending that time, provided that the application therefor is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations period of one year and 90 days (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; [5]).The decision whether to grant such leave “compels consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,” including the “nonexhaustive list of factors” in section 50-e (5) ….The three main factors are “whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … “[T]he presence or absence of any one of the numerous relevant factors the court must consider is not determinative” …, and “[t]he court is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny the application”… .  Dalton v Akron Central Schools, 408, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Religious Organization Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Volunteer Under Agency Theory

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that a volunteer [Strimling] was an agent of the defendant [Gateway], a corporation hosting a religious event, such that the defendant was vicariously liable with respect to an automobile accident involving the volunteer:

A  principal-agent relationship can  include a volunteer when  the requisite conditions, including control and  acting on  another’s behalf, are shown … .Gateways was  operating a program  where  it expected  700  to 800  attendees, who each paid $700 to attend.  Strimling’s fee to attend was waived  as it had  been  previously and, with his fee waived, he helped with various tasks that had to be accomplished to run the event. Strimling’s responsibilities included  arriving early to help set up, and  he was  supposed to remain after the event to pack up items for the return trip. Strimling referred to his responsibilities as work and  a job, reflecting his understanding of control by Gateways. Although he was not paid directly by Gateways, his $700 fee was waived and one of the individuals from Gateways in charge of the event also gave him $200. There was proof that the accident occurred when an individual who had authorized Strimling’s free attendance realized that two-way radios were needed and Strimling was summoned from his room to go to a store to purchase such items. Strimling was given a Gateways’ credit card and embarked on  a trip to a store solely to purchase the requested items for Gateways when  the accident occurred. He did so despite the fact that the timing of the request created a significant likelihood that Strimling would be put in the difficult position of traveling at a time of the evening that was prohibited by his religious beliefs. The proof sufficiently supports Supreme Court’s decision.  Paterno v Strimling…, 515978, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

Negligence Suit Based Upon Shooting at Shopping Mall Dismissed

The Third Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant shopping mall in a negligence suit based upon a shooting at the mall in which plaintiffs were injured.  The Court determined the shooting was not foreseeable and explained the relevant legal principles as follows:

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to secure their premises from foreseeable harm, including the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties on the premises….    Criminal conduct is foreseeable if it was “reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location”….   While the prior criminal activity need not have been “at the exact location where [the] plaintiff was harmed or . . . of the same type of criminal conduct to which [the] plaintiff was subjected,” the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon “the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question”… Haire v Bonelli …, 515494, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

, ,

Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed

The First Department, over a substantial dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s grant of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in a medical malpractice action:

“The question of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence is discretion-laden, and the critical inquiry is whether the verdict rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence”…. On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, because it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence…. The jury was entitled to resolve in plaintiff’s favor the conflict between the decedent’s and Dr. Conte’s testimony as to the nature and timing of her complaints and whether he later made referrals for CT scans that she declined.  Rose v Conte, 2013 NY Slip Op 04297, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

,

Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to File Late Notice of Claim

The First Department determined plaintiff, who was eleven at the time of the accident, should have been allowed to file an amended notice of claim. The original notice described the wrong address.  At the 50-h hearing the plaintiff identified the correct location after seeing photographs of the incorrect location.  The defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating prejudice.  Gonzalez v NYC Hous Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04287, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

Question of Fact Raised in Rear-End Collision Case

Over a dissent by two justices, the Fourth Department ruled a question of fact had been raised which precluded summary judgment to a defendant in a rear-end collision case:

Although defendant met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of negligence on the part of plaintiff inasmuch as it is undisputed that plaintiff’s vehicle rear-ended defendant’s stopped vehicle, we conclude that plaintiff submitted evidence of an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the collision… .

While other cases have held that a party’s testimony that he or she did not “see” the other vehicle’s brake lights illuminated before rear-ending that vehicle does not alone establish the requisite nonnegligent explanation for the collision…, those cases are distinguishable from this case. Here, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unable to discern whether defendant’s vehicle was stopped because defendant’s brake lights were not activated. Plaintiff, however, also submitted the deposition testimony of McCulloch [the driver of the vehicle in front of defendant] and defendant in which they both described traffic conditions on the date of the accident as “congested” and “stop and go.” Additionally, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant stopped suddenly. Indeed, plaintiff testified at his deposition that defendant apologized to plaintiff for the accident, explaining that McCulloch had stopped suddenly and that defendant “couldn’t help it.” That evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party …, establishes a sufficient nonnegligent explanation for the collision.  Borowski v Ptak …, 1315, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

Past Psychological Records Deemed Relevant in Lead-Paint Injury Case Where Psychological Injury Alleged

In a lead-paint injury case, the Fourth Department determined medical records regarding psychological injury stemming from a sexual assault were discoverable because the plaintiff alleged psychological injury associated with exposure to lead paint.  The Court ordered an in camera inspection of the records to weed out irrelevant information.  Dominique D. v Koerntgen…, 512, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

,

“Substantial Factor in Producing the Injury” Jury Instruction (Re: Causation) Did Not Reduce Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof

In attempting to intubate an 83-year-old woman who was unresponsive, a doctor perforated her esophagus making it necessary that she be fed through a tube for the remaining three years of her life.  In affirming the plaintiffs’ verdict, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s jury charge did not improperly reduce plaintiffs’ burden of proof on the issue of causation in this medical malpractice action. The jury was told defendant’s negligence caused the injury if it was a substantial factor in producing the injury:

It is well settled that a “plaintiff must generally show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury” to satisfy “the burden of proving a prima facie case” in a medical malpractice action…. Here, the trial court recited the proximate cause charge directly from the PJI and explicitly instructed the jury as to plaintiffs’ burden of proof in the case. The court charged the jury using the language from PJI 2:70, as follows: “An act or omission is regarded as a cause of an injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. That is, if it had such an effect in producing the injury that reasonable people would regard it as a cause of the injury.” Further, at the outset of the charge, the court instructed the jury that “the burden of the proof in this case rests with the plaintiffs,” and made clear that the plaintiffs had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence defendants’ negligence. Taking this jury charge as a whole, we do not find support for defendants’ contention of an improper alteration of the causation standard or plaintiffs’ burden of proof ….  Wild v Catholic Health System…, No 97, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

, , , , , ,

“Crime-Fraud” Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Re: Studies Funded by Defendant Casting Doubt on Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined plaintiffs, as part of discovery in this asbestos litigation, were entitled to an in camera review of defendant’s internal communications and to the data underlying published research studies funded by the defendant. The studies purported to cast doubt on whether chrysotile asbestos caused cancer.  In the course of the opinion, the First Department explained the “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege (the basis of the request for in camera review of defendant’s internal communications):

The motion court providently exercised its broad discretion …when it  …granted in camera review of the documents to determine whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied … .

The crime-fraud exception encompasses ” a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other wrongful conduct'”…. “[A]dvice in furtherance of a fraudulent or unlawful goal cannot be considered sound.’ Rather advice in furtherance of such goals is socially perverse, and the client’s communications seeking such advice are not worthy of protection”….

A party seeking “to invoke the crime-fraud exception must demonstrate that there is a factual basis for a showing of probable cause to believe that a fraud or crime has been committed and that the communications in question were in furtherance of the fraud or crime” … .However, “[a] lesser evidentiary showing is needed to trigger in camera review than is required ultimately to overcome the privilege”… .

To permit in camera review of the documents to analyze whether the communications were used in furtherance of such wrongful activity, there need only be “a showing of a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies” …. “Once that showing is made, the decision whether to engage in in camera review of the evidence rests in the sound discretion of the [] court” …. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2013 NY Slip Op 04127, 1st Dept, 6-6-13

 

½ Inch Differential Was Trivial and Could Not Be Basis of Liability

The First Department affirmed the dismissal of a slip and fall complaint finding the one-half-inch differential between the level of the sidewalk and the frame of the cellar door was trivial and could not serve as the basis of liability.  Boynton v Haru Sake Bar, 2013 NY Slip Op 04113, 1st Dept, 6-6-13

 

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