You are here: / Negligence
, , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to defendants’ hospital with COVID-19 and died from COVID-19. Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [P]laintiff alleges that the decedent was diagnosed with COVID-19 after arriving at Elmhurst Hospital on March 30, 2020, and that he died from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The defendants’ submissions, including the complaint and the transcript of the plaintiff’s hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the EDTPA (see Public Health Law former § 3082 …). As the complaint makes no allegations that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted willful or intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, none of the exceptions to the immunity provisions of EDTPA apply (see Public Health Law former § 3082[2]). Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00186, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The defendants in the medical malpractice, wrongful death action are immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the hospital with COVID and died from COVID.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-landlord did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck which plaintiff fell through. In addition there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

Defendants testified that they inspected the deck before purchasing the property and also obtained the services of an unidentified inspector. However, they failed to produce the inspection report or any evidence of its contents, nor did they establish that the defect in the deck could not have been discovered upon a diligent inspection … . In light of defendants’ failure to show lack of actual or constructive notice, it is of no moment that they did not create the defective condition of the deck.

… Plaintiff’s expert engineer opined that the lack of a certificate of occupancy for the property, including the deck, should have put defendants on notice that the deck was not compliant with applicable building codes and that an inspection would have uncovered weakened plywood under the deck’s tile surface.

… The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence to be drawn where (1) the event is of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, (2) it was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants, and (3) plaintiff’s actions did not contribute in any way to the occurrence … . The first and third elements are established here because “a deck being put to its regular and intended use does not ordinarily collapse in the absence of negligence,” and there is no claim that any contributory negligence by plaintiff caused the collapse … . The second element of exclusive control may be established to the extent that plaintiff’s claim is based on defendants’ failure to maintain the deck since their acquisition of the property, rather than on the illegal construction of the deck at some earlier date … . Rosario v Cao, 2024 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-11-24

Practice Point: Here the deck of plaintiff’s apartment collapsed and she fell through it. There was no certificate of occupancy on file. The elements of res ipsa loquitur were present. Defendants therefore did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the two “inadequate fall-prevention” causes of action in the complaint sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the affidavit from a nurse was not sufficient to support the malpractice causes of action:

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the specific allegations sounding in medical malpractice, by and through an expert’s affidavit from a physician opining that decedent was provided with fall prevention interventions throughout her admission that met or exceeded the standard of care, and that, following each fall, decedent was rendered the appropriate medical care and treatment. Moreover, this physician opined that the treatment plan developed for decedent and the care rendered to her were within the standard of care and were not a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries … . In opposition, plaintiff tendered an expert affidavit from a nurse. However, inasmuch as certain allegations sound in medical malpractice and pertain to medical determinations and what a physician should or should not have done, plaintiff’s nurse rendered opinions that “went beyond her professional and educational experience and cannot be considered competent medical opinion” … . Currie v Oneida Health Sys., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06780, Second Dept 12-28-23

Practice Point: Re: the medical malpractice causes of action, the affidavit from a physician in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment prevailed over plaintiff’s affidavit from a nurse who, based on her experience and education, could not offer a competent medical opinion.

 

,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet substance on the floor alleged to have cause plaintiff’s slip and fall. Evidence that the corridor in question was inspected “more than an hour” before the slip and fall and evidence others were in the corridor when plaintiff fell did not eliminate questions fact about whether the hospital had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition. The defendant’s evidence that the corridor was inspected more than an hour before the accident was insufficient to establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy the condition. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, established that there were at least three nurses and a doctor present in the corridor at the time of her fall … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice anything on the floor before she fell was insufficient to establish that the condition would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection … . Croake v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06723, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, evidence the area of the fall was inspected “more than an hour” before the fall does not demonstrate the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this traffic accident case had raised questions of fact about when the release signed by plaintiff under unfair circumstances:

… [P]laintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, and whether it was not “fairly and knowingly” made … . The plaintiff averred, among other things, that shortly after the accident, an insurance representative for the defendants called him “repeatedly;” that he had difficulty understanding the defendants’ representative due to a language barrier; that the defendants’ representative, who had him sign the release to obtain money for medical bills, never explained that the document he signed was a release or had the legal effect of the release; and that the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney at the time he signed the release. Moreover, the plaintiff raised questions of fact as to whether there was mutual mistake as to the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff from the alleged accident … . Wei Qiang Huang v Llerena-Salazar, 2023 NY Slip Op 06772, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: Unfair circumstances surrounding the signing of a release, short of fraud, can invalidate it.

 

, , ,

THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent city in this bus-vehicle accident case had timely knowledge of the essential facts of the incident and therefore was not prejudiced by the late notice of claim. The court noted that law office failure is not an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a notice of claim, but using that excuse did not mandate denial of the motion:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner’s application, as petitioner established that respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts within the statutorily prescribed filing period … . As the record showed, the accident involved an NYCTA-owned bus and an NYCTA driver, and was immediately investigated by an NYCTA supervisor. Therefore, petitioner sustained his burden of showing that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits if he were permitted leave to file a late notice of claim … .

In response to petitioner’s showing, respondents offered no particularized evidence suggesting that they would be prejudiced by the delay. Therefore, respondents have failed to rebut petitioner’s showing … . Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 06591, First Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: If the municipality has timely knowledge of the essential fact underlying a claim (here a bus-vehicle accident) and is not prejudiced by the delay, a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim may be granted even in the absence of an adequate excuse.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FRACTURED HER ANKLE AND FAILED TO REPAIR IT; NONJURY VERDICT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing a nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims, determined the evidence demonstrated the defendant (NYS) had constructive notice of the pothole where plaintiff fractured her ankle in September 2017:

All four DOT [Department of Transportation] witnesses acknowledged that they did not know how long the pothole existed prior to [plaintiff’s] accident. One DOT witness, a retired assistant resident engineer, confirmed that with a “freeze/thaw in the winter . . . the actual [popping out [of a pothole] . . . can occur sometime later, even in warmer months.” The key testimony came from George Laundrie, DOT’s resident engineer … . When asked whether the pothole “must have formed sometime prior to the summer” of 2017, Laundrie responded: “I don’t think it’s fair to say it must have formed prior to June of 2017. I think it’d be fair to say it’s likely it probably formed prior to that . . . , I wouldn’t say must have, but it’s probably pretty likely it formed prior to June.” …

In reviewing a nonjury verdict on appeal, this Court has broad, independent authority to weigh the evidence and render a judgment “warranted by the facts” … . In our view, Laundrie’s testimony was not ambiguous and established that it was probable that the pothole existed for several months before Feeney’s accident. Correspondingly, the record shows that defendant’s road maintenance crews worked in this area six times since January 2017, and most recently in July 2017. On this record, we conclude that claimants met their burden of proving that despite having constructive notice, defendants were negligent in failing to repair the pothole (see PJI 1:60). Inasmuch as issues of comparative negligence and damages remain to be determined, the claim must be remitted to the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act … . Feeney v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 06574, Third Dept 12-21-23

Practice Point: Here the Third Department reversed a nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims finding that the evidence demonstrated the State had constructive notice of the pothole where plaintiff fractured her ankle and negligently failed to repair. The matter was sent back for determination of the comparative negligence and damages issues.

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST, SAW WHAT WAS THERE TO BE SEEN (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver saw what was there to be seen in this bicycle-vehicle accident. Plaintiff bicyclist alleged he was halfway across the road in a crosswalk when defendant made a sudden turn into his path:

“Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. A bicyclist is required to use reasonable care for his or her own safety, to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for vehicles, and to avoid placing himself or herself into a dangerous position” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a), motorists must “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian, or domestic animal” on the roadway and to “give warning by sounding the horn when necessary” … . A motorist also has a “common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses” … .

… T]he defendant … failed to establish … that his conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident. The defendant testified at his deposition that he slowly made his turn, and that he did not see the plaintiff prior to the impact. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he saw the defendant’s vehicle make a sudden right turn in front of him one second prior to the impact. Thus, the defendant’s own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of his senses … . Khalil v Garcia-Olea, 2023 NY Slip Op 06517, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: A driver is expected to see what is there to be seen. Here it was alleged defendant driver made a turn into the path of plaintiff bicyclist. Defendant driver’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling in a school pick-up soccer game. Plaintiff alleged he fell because of pebbles and wet grass on the playing field:

The infant plaintiff testified that he fell because of a combination of, among other things, pebbles on the field and wet and muddy grass. The infant plaintiff further testified that there were no puddles, and the grass was wet from the previous day’s rain and other students playing with water balloons on the field. However, neither the pebbles nor the wet grass described in this case presented a concealed or unreasonably increased risk beyond those inherent in the activity of outdoor soccer … , regardless of whether the wet grass was caused by rain or water balloons … . Furthermore, merely allowing children to play on a field with pebbles and wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision … .   To hold otherwise would effectively prohibit schools from utilizing outdoor playing fields … . C.P.G. v Uniondale Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 06512, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of falling because of pebbles and wet grass on the soccer playing field.

 

, ,

NONE OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT FIRE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO RAISE IT BELOW, BECAUSE IT CONCERNED A QUESTION OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant fire safety and security contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. It was alleged the steps where plaintiff fell were in disrepair and were not sufficiently illuminated, which had nothing to do with defendant-contractor’s duties. Therefore the contractor did not “launch and instrument of harm,” plaintiff could not have relied upon the contractor to make the area safe, and the contractor’s contract with the owner did not displace the owner’s safety-related responsibilities:

Unity, the building’s fire safety and security contractor, should have been granted summary judgment. Even assuming that Unity’s contractual fire safety inspection duties extended to the identification of premises defects such as the broken step involved in plaintiff’s mishap, any failure by Unity to identify that defect would not have constituted the affirmative launching of a force or instrument of harm within the meaning of Espinal … . The same is true of any failure by Unity to call attention to insufficient lighting of the stairway. Further, Unity’s contract did not completely displace the duty of the owner or managing agent to maintain the safety of the premises … . Nor is there any evidence that plaintiff detrimentally relied on Unity to perform its contractual duties. Accordingly, on this record, none of the Espinal conditions for holding a premises contractor liable for an injury to a third party are satisfied with respect to Unity. Diamond v TF Cornerstone Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06473, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here none of the Espinal exceptions applied such that the contractor could be held liable for the slip and fall.

Practice Point: Although the “Espinal” issue was not raised below, it could be raised on appeal because it presented a question of law.

 

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