You are here: / Negligence
,

Court Has No Authority to Grant Application to File Late Notice of Claim After Statute of Limitations Has Expired.

Plaintiff filed a notice of claim and commenced a suit against the City of New York.  The complaint was amended to add the New York City Transit Authority as a defendant.  The First Department affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the Transit Authority because no notice of claim against the Transit Authority had been filed and the motion to file a late notice of claim was made more than one year and 90 days after the incident. Martinez v City of New York, et al, 9428, 16403/03, First Dept. 3-5-13

 

 

Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient.

The Second Department explained that “[m]ere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” in opposing a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  Mahoney vs AMC Entertainment, Inc., 2012-00582, Index No. 2258/08, Second Dept. 2-27-13

 

,

Primary Assumption of Risk Precludes Student’s Sports-Related Lawsuit.

The “primary assumption of risk” doctrine precluded a student baseball player’s lawsuit against his school where the student was struck in the face by a baseball “that had been hit on the ground with a fungo bat.”  O’Connor vs Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District, 2-12-04146, Index No. 021556/09, Second Dept. 2-27-13

 

, ,

Expert Opinion Must Be Based On Facts in Record or Personally Known.

“A written report prepared by a nontestifying doctor interpreting the results of a medical test is not admissible into evidence.  …[O]pinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness …”  D’Andria vs Pesce, 2011-03506, Index No. 16320/02 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

,

Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of Theory.

“Since the [res ipsa loquitur] doctrine merely permits an inference arising from the evidence in a negligence case, the plaintiff’s failure to plead res ipsa loquitur does not foreclose its application on summary judgment or at trial.”  Wicks vs Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., 2011-01891, Index No. 1843/08 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

,

Causes of Action Not in Notice of Claim Dismissed.

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint because the complaint asserted theories not mentioned in the notice of claim.  “A party may not add a new theory of liability which was not included in the notice of claim …”.  Williams vs County of Westchester, 2011-10614, Index No. 15002/08 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

,

Late Notice of Claim Disallowed.

The Second Department reversed the trial court’s grant of a petition to file a late notice of claim.  “The petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse… .  The petitioners’ assertion that they only recently discovered that they had a claim against the City is not an acceptable excuse … .  * * *  The fact that the … Police Department had knowledge of this accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the City …”. Matter of Klass vs City of New York, 2012-00913, Index No. 16699/11 Second Dept. 2-20-13

 

, ,

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination of Duration of Disability Given Preclusive Effect in Related Personal Injury Action

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable to determinations of quasi-judicial administrative agencies such as the” Workers’ Compensation Board with respect to “findings of fact that are necessary for an administrative agency to reach.”  Here the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination of the duration of the work-related injury was given preclusive effect in a related personal injury action.  Judge Pigott wrote a strong dissent, arguing in part that the finding was necessarily a mixture of fact and law, not subject to the collateral estoppel principle. Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 00950 [20 NY3d 1035], CtApp 2-14-13

 

“Zone of Danger” Theory Applies Only to Immediate Family.

The Second Department determined the “zone of danger” theory of recovery for witnessing the death of someone in the plaintiff’s “immediate family” did not allow recovery for witnessing the death of a man, not plaintiff’s biological father, who was the only person plaintiff had ever known as a father figure.  Thompson vs Dhaiti, 2011-11215, Index No. 24951/09 Second Dept. 2-13-13

 

Intentional Assault Did Not Sever Causal Connection to Serving Alcohol.

The First Department determined an intentional assault would not sever the causal connection between injury to the plaintiff and the bar’s serving alcohol to a person alleged to have been visibly intoxicated, as well as the bar’s alleged failure to provide proper security.  Carver vs P.J. Carney’s, 9216, 103191/10 First Dept. 2-7-13

 

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