You are here: / Negligence

INDEMNIFICATION IS ONLY AVAILABLE IF THE PARTY SEEKING IT IS NOT NEGLIGENT (VICARIOUS LIABILITY); A PARTY WHO IS PARTIALLY NEGLIGENT MAY ONLY SEEK CONTRIBUTION, NOT INDEMNIFICATION, FROM OTHER TORT-FEASORS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the third-party complaint against defendant seeking indemnification should have been dismissed because the third-party plaintiff could not be vicariously liable for the negligence of the defendant. Where a party is partially liable based on its own negligence, only contribution from other tort-feasors, not indemnification, is available:

“The principle of common-law, or implied indemnification, permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “The predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, that is, the defendant’s role in causing the plaintiff’s injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious” … . However, “where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy” … . De Heras v Avant Gardner, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00999, Second Dept 2-28-24

Practice Point: Indemnification is only available to a party who is vicariously liable for the negligence of another. A party who is partially negligence can only seek contribution, not indemnification, from other tort-feasors.

 

,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT (CVA) ACTION, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT RECRUITMENT AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (BBBS) AND FAMILY SERVICES OF WESTCHESTER (FSW) BASED ON THE ALLEGED SEXUAL CONDUCT BY A VOLUNTEER MENTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBS)’s and defendant Family Services of Westchester (FSW)’s motions to dismiss the negligent supervision, negligent recruitment and negligent failure to warn causes of action were properly denied in this Child Victims Act (CVA) lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged he was sexually abused by a mentor associated with defendants:

… [T]he amended complaint adequately alleged that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and that the sexual abuse by the mentor was foreseeable. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that the mentor groomed and sexually abused the plaintiff “in connection with [the mentor’s] position as a volunteer with BBBS and FSW” and “in connection with BBBS and FSW sponsored activities.” During all relevant times, BBBS and FSW had allegedly assumed custody and control over the plaintiff “as a minor child in their care.” The amended complaint alleged that the defendants had a duty to “take reasonable measures to guard against child sexual abuse by volunteers” and that the defendants failed to ensure that there were reasonable screening or recruitment measures in place to prevent such abuse. The amended complaint further alleged that BBBS published two reports demonstrating that, while the plaintiff’s abuse was ongoing, BBBS was aware that the services it offered “attract[ed] child sexual abusers,” that the clients of BBBS were at “high risk” for potential abuse, and that the selection process used to match mentors with mentees did not appropriately incorporate child sexual abuse prevention training (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the amended complaint alleged that the mentor had “dangerous propensities,” that the defendants “should have known” that the mentor had a propensity to sexually abuse children, and that oversight and monitoring of the mentor’s interactions with his prior mentees “would have revealed [the mentor’s] pattern of predatory behavior.” At the pleading stage of the litigation, where the plaintiff’s allegations are accepted as true and are accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that the sexual abuse by the mentor was foreseeable … . Brophy v Big Bros. Big Sisters of Am., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00993, Second Dept 2-28-24

Practice Point: Here in this Child Victims Act (CVA) case, the complaint adequately alleged negligent supervision, negligent recruitment and negligent failure to warn.

 

, ,

THE CONTRACTOR WHICH UNDERTOOK THE DUTY TO INSTALL FLOORING WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THAT DUTY WITH REASONABLE CARE; THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD A SEPARATE NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SAFE WHICH MAY ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE TO BE IMPUTED TO THE OWNER; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) defendant contractor (AW&S) undertook the duty to install flooring and was therefore required to perform that duty with reasonable care, and (2) the owner of the property (UJA) had a separate, nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe. There was evidence AW&S failed to secure portions of the flooring it installed and that failure was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s trip and fall. Defendants did not present any evidence of when the floor was last inspected prior to the fall and therefore did not demonstrate the absence of constructive notice of the defect:

Defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not negligent in the installation and maintenance of the Masonite flooring on which plaintiff tripped and fell … . Although defendants claim that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused plaintiff’s injuries, the record establishes that defendant owner … (UJA) requested that defendant … (AW&S) protect the floors during a renovation project in its building for which AW&S served as general contractor. … AW&S specifically undertook responsibility for the installation, maintenance, and inspection of the protective Masonite flooring while it was on site, and the project superintendent noted that there were sections of Masonite that lacked duct tape securing it to the floor in the area where plaintiff tripped and fell. Based on this testimony, there are questions of fact as to whether AW&S’s failure to secure the Masonite, or to note that it was not secured upon inspection, was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . … [W]here a defendant has undertaken a specific duty, it is obligated to perform that duty with reasonable care or be liable for any hazards it creates … . UJA, as owner, has a separate, nondelegable duty to maintain its premises, and AW&S’s negligent maintenance of the Masonite, if established, could be imputed to UJA …

Defendants also failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of the condition. Neither defendant offered evidence of maintenance and inspection records despite testimony that the duct tape on the Masonite required routine replacement when it became curled or wet … .  …[P]laintiff was not required to establish how long the condition existed … . Bolson v UJA-FED Props. Inc., Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 00966, First Dept 2-27-24

Practice Point: A contractor which assumes the duty to do work, here floor-installation, is required to do so with reasonable care.

Practice Point: The property owner which hires a contractor to do work has a separate nondelegable duty to keep the premises safe such that a contractor’s negligence may be imputed to the owner.

 

, , ,

THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DURING PHOTO SHOOTS OF PLAINTIFF-MODEL WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 YEARS OLD MET THE “SEXUAL CONDUCT” CRITERIA FOR THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA), THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, modifying Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act (CVA) action, determined: (1) the conduct alleged to have been committed by defendant modeling agency (Wilhelmina) and defendant-seller of sun tan products (Cal Tan) during photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the CVA (CPLR  214-g); (2) New York has jurisdiction over the case against Cal Tan, even though the Cal Tan photo shoot took place in Mexico (plaintiff was a New York resident); (3) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary causes of action against Cal Tan were properly dismissed because no allegations supported a duty to supervise; (4) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against Wilhelmina should not have been dismissed because no arguments in opposition were interposed; and (5) the invasion of privacy causes of action (Civil Rights Law section 50) against both defendants survived the motions to dismiss. The following allegations were deemed sufficient to meet the “sexual conduct” criteria for the applicability of the CVA’s extended statute of limitations:

Plaintiff’s allegations as to Cal Tan include that she was “instructed . . . to arch her back and look at the camera ‘sexy,’ ‘like a lover,’ and think about doing ‘naughty things with your boyfriend,'” and that the photographs generated from the photoshoot “included ones in which Doe was depicted topless with her back arched in a sexually suggestive pose; looking out to the sea in a sultry manner; in which she was completely topless and ‘naked in the water’; where she is posed suggesting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; and where Doe is standing on a roof, semi- or totally naked.”

As to Wilhelmina, plaintiff alleged that at one photoshoot, “[s]he was photographed in [see-through lingerie] with another girl, also wearing see-through lingerie, together in bed. Doe and the other underage model wore coy expressions, as if together they had been doing something naughty, or sexual;” at another photoshoot, where plaintiff was unclothed, she was “instructed . . . to look ‘innocent, but sexy’ for some photos, and like a ‘bad girl’ for others”; and that at a third photoshoot she “was made to sit nude on a bed with a white sheet covering part, but not all, of her breast and buttocks.” Doe v Wilhelmina Models, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00969, First Dept 2-27-24\

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion lays out the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the Child Victims Act (CVA). Here allegations of defendants’ conduct during  photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the CVA sexual-conduct criteria.

 

,

THE ROLLING LADDER LEFT IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT’S STORE WAS READILY OBVERSABLE, WHICH SPEAKS ONLY TO DEFENDANT’S DUTY TO WARN, NOT TO THE DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE; THE PROTRUDING BAR ON THE LADDER CREATED A POTENTIAL TRIPPING HAZARD; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case should not have been granted. A rolling ladder had been left in an aisle of the store. The was a stabilizer bar which protruded out several inches on each side of the ladder. Plaintiff picked up something from the shelf, took one step back and tripped over the stabilizer bar as she turned. Supreme Court held the bar was readily observable and not inherently dangerous. The Third Department noted that the “readily observable” aspect of a condition goes to the duty to warn, but the duty to keep the area safe remains:

That the ladder was readily observable obviates defendants’ duty to warn of the ladder’s presence but not defendants’ continuing obligation to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . For her part, plaintiff acknowledged seeing the ladder, but was unaware of the protruding stabilizer bar prior to her fall. Given the circumstances surrounding the incident, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the ladder was not inherently dangerous … . The record includes a photograph of the ladder which shows that the stabilizer bar protruded out several inches on each side. This feature, coupled with the placement of the ladder into the center of the aisle, presented a potential tripping hazard. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Wolfe v Staples, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00957, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: The fact that an object over which plaintiff tripped was readily observable goes to defendant’s duty to warn, but not to the duty to keep the premises safer. Here a protruding bar on a readily observable rolling ladder created a potential tripping hazard and raised a question of fact about defendant’s duty to keep the premises safe.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant summer-camp-owners’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this swimming-pool-incident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered some sort of “medical emergency” in defendants’ swimming pool. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the Sanitary Code did not require the camp to have a lifeguard and therefore defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff’s decedent. The Third Department held that, although the Sanitary Code did not require a lifeguard, it did require some level of supervision of persons using the pool:

While the CPR [lifeguard] requirement is specifically exempted for temporary residences [like defendants’ summer camp], the aquatic supervisor for a supervision level III [defendants had chosen to offer supervision level III] at a temporary residence must still possess the other enumerated qualifications (see 10 NYCRR 6-1.31 [c]). To find otherwise would render meaningless 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (3), which provides that if supervision level III is chosen then the temporary residence must adhere to the supervision level III requirements … . While it is true that 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (1) (i) exempts CPR certified staff [lifeguards] from a temporary residence that selects supervision level III, it plainly does not exempt these facilities from providing any supervision. As such, we find that Supreme Court erred in determining that defendants did not owe any duty to decedent and granting defendants summary judgment on this basis. Matter of Tamrazyan v Solway Props. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00960, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: Here the duty owed by defendant summer camp to persons using the swimmer pool was spelled out in the Sanitary Code. Although the defendant summer camp, pursuant to the Code, was not required to provide a lifeguard, it was required to offer some supervision of persons using the swimming pool. Therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered a medical emergency in the pool.

 

, ,

UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined defendant doctor and hospital in this med mal case did not attempt at trial to shift liability to the physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment before trial. The opinion is fact-specific and therefore will not be summarized here. The issue is discussed in detail and relevant authority is analyzed in some depth:

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the defendants improperly attempted at trial to shift liability to certain physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. We answer this question in the negative, and find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application of the plaintiff … , in effect, for a new trial on this ground. We further conclude that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Angieri v Musso, 2024 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Under the specific facts brought out at trial in this med mal case, the plaintiff did not attempt to shift liability to doctors who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. The issue and the relevant authority are discussed in some detail.

 

,

RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this bicycle-fall case, determined the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply. Plaintiff was riding on public path which was not a designated venue for bicycling when he hit an area of broken asphalt:

… [T]he Court of Claims erred in determining that the path where the claimant’s accident occurred was a designated venue used specifically for bicycling. When the injury occurred, the claimant was engaged in a recreational bicycle ride on a paved, public surface. The claimant was not participating in an organized group event or sponsored ride. The claimant testified at trial that he could both bike and walk the path. That, in addition to the presence of pedestrians who precipitated the accident, demonstrated that the path was for public use, and not a designated venue for bicycling. Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant’s activity … . Alfieri v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 00886, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Riding a bicycle on a public path used by pedestrians and bicyclists is not a recreational activity which triggers the assumption of the risk doctrine.

 

​

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE; THE PURSUED CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR; THE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE TOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a town police officer (Cunningham) and the town alleging the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others during a high speed chase should not have been dismissed. The car which was pursued by Cunningham struck plaintiff’s (Kolvenbach’s) car:

… [T]he Town defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Kolvenbach’s injuries … . In support of the Town defendants’ motion, they submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Cunningham and other witnesses who testified that, on the day at issue, Cunningham pursued Williams at high speeds on damp roads through a main thoroughfare, and that Williams’ vehicle narrowly avoided colliding with other vehicles at earlier points during the pursuit. Thus, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others in continuing the pursuit … . There also remain triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham activated the siren on his police vehicle … and whether he violated police protocols by failing to update his supervisors on the progress of the pursuit via his police radio … . Kolvenbach v Cunningham, 2024 NY Slip Op 00900, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: This case demonstrates what may constitute “reckless disregard for the safety of others” by a police officer during a high-speed chase which may result in municipal liability for injuries caused by the pursued vehicle.

 

, , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord-tenant relationship between the insured and the defendant building owner, Marion, did not constitute a “unity of interest” such that a negligence action against Marion could be commenced after the statute of limitations had run:

There are three conditions that must be satisfied for a claim asserted against a subsequent defendant such as Marion to relate back to claims asserted against another defendant: (1) both claims must arise out of the same conduct, occurrence, or transaction; (2) the new party must be “united in interest” with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the lawsuit such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well … . * * *

… [A] landlord-tenant relationship, standing alone, does not give rise to vicarious liability or otherwise create unity of interest, which, as the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, requires a situation in which the parties “stand or fall together and the judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Kingstone Ins. Co. v Marion Pharm. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: A landlord and a tenant are not united in interest for purposes of the relation-back doctrine and will not support adding a landlord to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run.

 

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