You are here: / Negligence
,

Defendant Could Not Deny Ownership Of Vehicle (Which Was Allegedly Transferred to Another Prior to the Accident) Because License Plates Had Not Been Removed

The Fourth Department determined that a defendant, Myers, was estopped from denying ownership of a vehicle, which was alleged to have been transferred to another defendant, Herring, because Myers’ license plates had not been removed:

With respect to the issue of ownership, we note that, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 420 (1), “[u]pon the transfer of ownership .. . of a motor vehicle . . . , its registration shall expire; and the seller . . . shall remove the number plates from the vehicle.” Consequently, “[a] registered owner who transfers a vehicle without removing the license plates is estopped as against an injured third party from denying ownership” … . Inasmuch as Myers admittedly left his license plates on the vehicle after purportedly transferring ownership to Herring, Myers is estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as against plaintiffs. Marafferi, et al v Herring, et al, 267, CA 12-01829, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, ,

Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim

In this case a notice of claim was filed naming the Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMCC) as defendant. In the complaint, the individual doctors, employees of ECMCC, were named as defendants. Overruling precedent to the contrary, the Fourth Department determined it was not necessary to name the individual employees in the notice of claim in order to sue them. In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, the Fourth Department wrote:

 …[D]efendants contend that, although service of the notice of claim on the Employee Defendants was not required, plaintiff was nevertheless required to name those individual defendants in the notice of claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against them. Despite precedent supporting that contention, we agree with Supreme Court that there is no such requirement. * * *

Although “[p]recedents involving statutory interpretation are entitled to great stability” …, we conclude that the courts have misapplied or misunderstood the law in creating, by judicial fiat, a requirement for notices of claim that goes beyond those requirements set forth in the statute.

If the legislature had intended that there be a requirement that the individual employees be named in the notices of claim, it could easily have created such a requirement. Goodwin, et al, v Pretorius, et al, 101, CA 12-01441, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

, ,

Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff after trial was reversed by the First Department because: (1) plaintiff’s son, a notice witness who testified about the alleged defective condition at the core of the lawsuit, had not been identified before trial; (2) a missing witness charge re: a purported employee of the defendant was given in the absence of proof of the employee’s existence; and (3), the testimony of defense witnesses was erroneously precluded or limited.  Collazo v Riverbay Co-op, 2013 NY Slip Op 01904, First Dept. 3-21-13

 

, ,

Wife’s Derivative Claim Added to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

The First Department held that a wife’s derivative claim in a medical malpractice action brought by her husband could be added to the complaint after the statute of limitations had expired (disagreeing with the 2nd and 3rd Departments):

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to amend. The original complaint placed Kings Harbor on notice of the underlying transaction (see CPLR 203 [f] …. We are in accord with the 3rd Department’s view that “[i]n the absence of any prejudice and under these circumstances, Supreme Court should be permitted to exercise that same discretion which would allow the addition of a plaintiff’s derivative cause of action” … . We disagree with the cases holding that a spouse’s derivative claim cannot be added to a complaint through the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f) (see e.g. Dowdall v General Motors Corp., 34 AD3d 1221, 1222 [4th Dept 2006]; Lucido v Vitolo, 251 AD2d 383, 384 [2d Dept 1998]).  Giambrone v Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr., 2013 NY Slip Op 01898, 9235N 307139/09, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

,

Prior Written Notice of Defect Not Needed Where It Is Alleged Municipality Created Dangerous Condition.

In finding the plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the municipality affirmatively created a dangerous condition (a curved section of fence alongside a roadway), the Second Department wrote:

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subject to liability for personal injuries caused by a defective street or sidewalk condition absent proof of prior written notice or an exception thereto … . “The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence [and] where a “special use” confers a special benefit upon the locality'” … .

The affirmative creation exception “[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence …, where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies … . Laracuente v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 01810, 2011-09475, Ind No 17543/06, Second Dept. 3-20-13

 

 

,

No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.

The Second Department reversed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant village because the village did not rule out the possibility that the sidewalk defect had been affirmatively created by negligent design and construction, an exception to the requirement that the village have prior notice of a sidewalk defect before a personal injury suit will be allowed:

Here, the defendant established that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Nonetheless, it failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . Here, the plaintiff’s pleadings alleged that the defendant affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused the accident through negligence in the design and construction of the sidewalk … . Under these circumstances, the defendant was required to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it affirmatively created the alleged dangerous condition through negligent design and construction to sustain its prima facie burden … . The defendant failed to do so, and therefore, its motion for summary judgment should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers …. Carlucci v Village of Scarsdale, 2013 NY Slip Op 01798, 2012-09179, Second Dept. 3-20-13

slip and fall

, ,

Expert Affidavit Did Not Raise a Question of Fact 

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant hospital, the Second Department explained the flaws in the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit, finding the expert did not lay a foundation for an opinion outside the expert’s area of specialization and made “speculative” and “conclusory” assertions:

In opposition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. When, as here, “a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert failed to lay the requisite foundation. Moreover, even assuming the requisite foundation had been laid, the expert’s assertions that a diagnosis of the fracture at the hospital would have led to adequate immobilization, without specifying what adequate immobilization would have entailed, and may have resulted in “normal healing,” are conclusory and speculative, and thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation … . Shashi v Nassau Communities Hosp., 2013 NY Sip Op 01818, 2011-04552, Index No 15636/08, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

​

, ,

“Emergency Exception” to Rule Hospital Is Not Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Non-Employee Physicians Did Not Apply

he Second Department determined the hospital’s (Winthrop-University Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging it was vicariously liable for the actions of a non-employee physician (Raio) should have been granted.  The hospital demonstrated that the “emergency room exception” to vicarious liability for the negligence of a non-employee physician did not apply:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . “However, an exception to the general rule exists when a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … .

Here, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of Raio by submitting evidence that Raio was not an employee of Winthrop-University Hospital, but rather, an attending physician at the hospital …. Furthermore, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing that the emergency room exception was inapplicable, by demonstrating that the decedent was referred to Raio’s care by his own internist … .  Giambona v Hines, et al, 2013, NY Slip Op 01803, 2011-05943, Ind No 7819/07, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

, ,

Relation Back Doctrine Allowed Adding Doctor as Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action after Expiration of Statute of Limitations.

The relation back doctrine was applied in a medical malpractice action to allow the addition of a doctor as a defendant after the statute of limitations expired. The doctrine applies where “(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) the additional 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 the additional party as well.”  The fact that the omission of the party may have been “negligent,” as opposed to a “mistake,” did not prevent the application of the doctrine. Kirk, et al, v University Ob-Gyn Associates, Inc., et al, 159, CA 12-01405, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

, , ,

Owner/Officer of Company Can Be Personally Liable for Toxic Emissions Released by Company.

Plaintiffs brought an action for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by toxic emissions released by defendant Tonawanda Coke Corporation.  An owner and officer of Tonawanda Coke (Crane) moved to dismiss the cause of action suing him in an individual capacity.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Fourth Department wrote:

Although “[a] corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because of his official relationship[,]” that officer will be held liable if it is established “that the officer was a participant in the wrongful conduct” … .Plaintiffs alleged in the first amended complaint that Crane was or should have been aware of the relevant environmental regulations, was ultimately responsible for reporting benzene emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, and personally supervised and exercised control over Tonawanda Coke’s operations … .Thus, plaintiffs have alleged that Crane actively participated in the wrongful conduct by approving the policies that allegedly caused the environmental contamination … .   Abbot v Tonawanda Coke Corporation, et al, 155, CA 12-01384, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

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