You are here: / Negligence
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE SPEED OF THE POLICE VEHICLE AND WHETHER THE SIREN WAS ON AS REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing this action stemming from plaintiff’s vehicle being struck by a police vehicle responding to an emergency. Plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the police officer’s conduct rose to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others. The officer drove in the oncoming lane of traffic where plaintiff was attempting a left turn:

The “reckless disregard standard demands more than a showing of a lack of due care under the circumstances—the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims . . . Rather, for liability to be predicated upon a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, there must be evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . Although the reckless disregard standard is a heightened standard compared to ordinary negligence, it “retains and recognizes the potential for liability as a protection for the general public against disproportionate, overreactive conduct” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s submissions raise questions of fact as to the speed at which the officer’s vehicle was traveling at the time of the accident and whether the officer was operating the siren in his vehicle, which would have been required by department policy … . Gwathney v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 07175, Fourth Dept 12-23-25

Practice Point: Here in this police-emergency-traffic-accident case, questions of fact about the speed of the police vehicle (in the oncoming lane where plaintiff was attempting a left turn) and whether the siren was on as required by department policy precluded summary judgment.

 

, ,

AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD (A BARRIER TO PROTECT A TREE FROM VEHICLES USING A PARKING LOT) IS SUBJECT TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; HERE THE BOLLARD, WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD TRIED TO SWING ON IT, WAS INSTALLED 14 YEARS AGO; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN-NOTICE AND BECAUSE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHEN THE BOLLARD WAS INSTALLED, THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined an arch-shaped bollard (a barrier to protect a tree from damage by vehicles using a parking lot), which fell over when a child attempted to swing on it, was subject to the written-notice requirement in the General Municipal Law. Because the city did not have written notice of the dangerous condition it cannot be held not liable. The Court of Appeals noted that a parking lot is a “highway” within the meaning of the General Municipal Law section 50-e “written notice” requirement:

Prior written notice is not required “where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence” which “immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . The exception is meant to “address[] situations where a hazard was foreseeable, insofar as the municipality created it” as opposed to situations where there is “difficulty in determining, after the passage of time,” whether the municipality was initially negligent … .

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the City caused or created an immediately dangerous condition through an act of affirmative negligence … . Nor did the affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert create a triable issue of fact as to the City’s affirmative negligence because, among other things, it did not tend to establish that the City left behind an unsafe condition at the time it installed the bollard 14 years prior to the accident. Although the expert opined that the bollard was unsafe from “the moment” it was installed, they failed to explain this conclusory opinion through reliance on industry standards or empirical data, nor did they explain how their “professional experience in construction” supported their conclusion … . Rather, the summary judgment record suggests that, to the extent the installation method created a defect, any such defect resulted from the effects of environmental conditions over time. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 07076, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: A parking lot is a “highway” for purposes of the General Municipal Law 50-e “written notice” requirement.

Practice Point: A bollard (a post which serves as a vehicle-barrier in a parking lot) is subject to the “highway” “written-notice” requirement in the General Municipal Law.

 

, , ,

HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE; BUT THE SECOND DEPARTMENT VACATED THE $385,000 INQUEST-JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE EXTENT OF THE INJURIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court correctly denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in a personal injury case because she failed to provide a reasonable excuse. Plaintiff alleged he stepped in a hole on defendant’s property, twisted his foot and fell. But the $385,000 damages judgment was vacated by the Second Department because plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the extent of the injuries. A new inquest was ordered:

… [A]lthough this Court is not relieving the defendant of her default, “[a]n unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise ‘would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an open season at the expense of a defaulting defendant'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s vague testimony at the inquest was insufficient to determine to what extent the plaintiff’s injuries were attributable to the subject accident and, therefore, whether the amount awarded was warranted. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the judgment, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter … . Albano v Roehrig, 2025 NY Slip Op 06839, Second Dept 12-10-25

Practice Point: Despite losing a motion to vacate a default judgment, a defendant may still successfully move to vacate a judgment awarded after an inquest on the ground the evidence offered at the inquest did not sufficiently demonstrate the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.

 

, , , , ,

HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT THE MEDICAL RECORDS; THEREFORE THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THAT THE HOSPITAL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the action, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim, alleging medical malpractice, negligence and violation of the Public Health Law on behalf of decedent, should not have been granted. The petitioner did not establish that the city had timely knowledge of the claim, which is the most important criterium for allowing late notice:

​”Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on plaintiff” … . The petitioner’s “failure to submit evidence of the contents of the alleged records is fatal to [her] argument that the [appellant] acquired actual knowledge from the existence of such records” … . Additionally, there is no suggestion in the record that the appellant refused to produce the medical records or that the petitioner sought to compel the appellant to produce any papers necessary to the determination of the petition pursuant to CPLR 409(a) … . Matter of Giustra v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06862, Second Dept 12-10-25

Practice Point: The most important criterium for leave to file a late notice of claim is evidence the city had timely knowledge of the claim. Medical records, depending on their contents, can (but do not necessarily) demonstrate timely knowledge of the claim. Here petitioner did not submit the medical records and therefore did not even attempt to demonstrate the city’s timely knowledge of the nature of the medical malpractice claim. The mere existence of medical records is not enough.​

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE “LOCALITY RULE” TO DISMISS THE OPINION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BECAUSE THE EXPERT PRACTICED MEDICINE IN ANOTHER STATE: WHEN AN EXPERT TESTIFIES ABOUT STANDARDS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE LOCALITY RULE SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiffs’ expert affidavit was not conclusory or speculative and raised triable questions of fact. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ expert’s (Grant’s) opinion on the ground Grant practiced medicine in a different state. Although the “locality rule” has not been set aside, it does not affect the validity of an opinion based on standards applicable throughout the United States:

… [W]e briefly address Supreme Court’s reliance on the fact that Grant practiced medicine in another state to ostensibly dismiss his opinions. Over 125 years ago in Pike v Honsinger (155 NY 201 [1898]), the Court of Appeals promulgated what has become known as the locality rule … . Under this rule, “the prevailing standard of care governing the conduct of medical professionals demands that a doctor exercise that reasonable degree of learning and skill that is ordinarily possessed by physicians and surgeons in the locality where the doctor practices” … . While this rule has not been set aside, this Court has indicated that “the development of vastly superior medical schools and postgraduate training, modern communications, the proliferation of medical journals, along with frequent seminars and conferences, have eroded the justification for th[is] rule” … . With the rise of the Internet and the attendant ease with which information is disseminated, this is even more true today. “Thus, where, as here, a medical expert proposes to testify about minimum standards applicable throughout the United States, the locality rule should not be invoked” … . Kosinski v Wladis, 2025 NY Slip Op 06772, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: In a med mal case, where an expert testifies about standards applicable throughout the United States, the “locality rule” requiring the application of local standards should no longer be invoked. Here plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion was erroneously dismissed because the expert practiced medicine in a different state.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the open and obvious nature of condition (a wooden brace over which plaintiff tripped) did not warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Labor Law 200 cause of action. The home was under construction and the brace ran at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling in the middle of the kitchen:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their prima facie burden as questions of fact remain as to whether defendants maintained the worksite in a reasonably safe condition, precluding summary judgment. … [D]efendants presented an affidavit of David Rubin, a former CEO of a general contracting firm with 45 years of experience in the field of general construction. Rubin reviewed, among other things, photographs of the worksite and observed there were two-by-four wooden braces set up throughout the home that were “necessary and fundamental to the construction process.” He explained that the brace plaintiff tripped over was “conspicuous and not hidden from sight, and indeed, plaintiff had already seen that particular brace prior to his incident.” Ultimately, he opined that neither the use nor the placement of the brace was negligent as it was necessary to support the structure at that stage of construction.

Although Rubin placed great emphasis on the fact that the brace was open and obvious and that plaintiff saw it prior to his fall, this Court has repeatedly held that “the open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a [general contractor’s] duty to maintain [the worksite] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, the readily observable nature of the wooden brace “merely negated any duty that defendant[s] owed plaintiff to warn of [the] potentially dangerous condition[ ]” … . Nor does plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition that he saw the wooden brace prior to his fall defeat his claim as his “previous knowledge of a defective condition, if any, may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence” … . Accordingly, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ [worksite was] maintained in a reasonably safe condition. That question is for the trier of fact to resolve” … . Sullivan v Flynn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06773, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department noted that a condition which is open and obvious and of which the plaintiff was aware before he was injured is not a sufficient ground for the award of summary judgment on a Labor Law 200 cause of action. Here a wooden floor to ceiling brace in the middle of the kitchen in a house under construction, over which plaintiff tripped, was deemed to raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP BY A FRAUDSTER TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLEAD A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE A DUTY (OWED TO PLAINTIFF) TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES ARISES; THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum decision which adopted the reasoning of the Second Department dissent by Justice Higgitt, reversed the Second Department’s ruling that the complaint adequately pled a special relationship between the bank and plaintiff and held that the bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. There must have existed a special relationship between defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank and plaintiff before a duty (owed to plaintiff) to enforce the bank’s anti-fraud procedures arises. Defendant David Tate had opened an account at a New Jersey Chase bank in the name of his business, Alchemy. Tate did not provide any personal identification or any corporate documentation to the bank. Plaintiff, thinking she was investing in Alchemy, wired $300,000 to the Alchemy account which was appropriated by Tate. As Justice Higgitt wrote in his dissent:

On this appeal, which involves an individual who was swindled when she authorized a wire transfer to the account of a fraudster, we are asked to determine whether New Jersey law recognizes a common-law duty on the part of a bank to an existing customer to exercise reasonable care before permitting a potential customer to open an account. I find that a duty to exercise such care exists only when a bank has a “special relationship” with its existing customer from which that duty should be deemed to flow. The amended complaint, however, fails to allege facts suggesting that a special relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant Bank. Therefore, defendant Bank’s CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion should have been granted. Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 7-11-24; Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06538 CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: In New Jersey, to sue a bank for the wrongful conduct of a third party, here the use of a bank account to defraud plaintiff, the bank must owe plaintiff a special duty. Reversing the Second Department and adopting the reasoning of the dissent, the Court of Appeals held the complaint should have been dismissed because it did not adequately allege the existence of a special relationship between the bank and the plaintiff.

 

,

IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NOT VISIBLY INTOXICATED WHEN SERVED AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN FOR ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT BAR MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN, THUS SHIFITNG THE BURDEN TO THE PLANTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined, in this Dram Shop Act case, defendant bar did not demonstrate defendant driver was not visibly intoxicated when served alcohol. The dissenters argued the bar met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment:

In support of the motion, defendant submitted evidence that, throughout the evening preceding the accident, plaintiff and a group of others—including the driver—were out celebrating and consumed alcohol. Just before they went to defendant’s bar, the entire group had been denied entry into another establishment because some members of the group were visibly intoxicated. At defendant’s bar, the group was served and consumed more alcohol. Although defendant’s owner and employees testified that defendant’s employees as a general practice do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol and that the employees were trained to recognize visibly intoxicated people, no one could specifically recall seeing the driver, nor could they describe the driver’s level of intoxication on the night at issue … . In fact, none of the deposition testimony submitted by defendant was from an individual physically present inside the bar at the time the driver was allegedly served.

From the dissent:

…. [W]e conclude that defendant met its initial burden on the motion by submitting uncontradicted deposition testimony “in which its employees averred that they had no recollection that [the driver] was visibly intoxicated while she was . . . at [defendant]’s establishment” … . … [D]efendant’s employees testified that staff are trained to recognize visibly intoxicated persons; that bartenders do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol; and that bouncers do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to enter the bar, that they make rounds inside the establishment in order to observe the patrons and determine if anyone is visibly intoxicated, and that they signal the bartenders to stop serving alcohol to patrons who are visibly intoxicated. Additionally, a bouncer testified that he recalled conducting “rounds inside the establishment” on the night of the incident and that he observed the patrons, as was his routine, but did not “signal[ ] to the bartenders that anyone was intoxicated.” Gonzalez v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 06423, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: In moving for summary judgment in a Dram Shop Act case, the defendant bar had the initial burden to demonstrate it did not serve a visibly intoxicated defendant. Because the majority concluded that initial burden was not met, the summary judgment motion was denied without the need to consider the plaintiff’s response. The dissent disagreed with the majority and argued the bar had met its initial burden.​

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent which argued the majority was improperly issuing an advisory opinion, determined the trial judge in this medical malpractice action properly ordered plaintiff’s counsel rescind correspondence sent to treatment providers which discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. The correspondence accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations executed by the plaintiff:

… [A] plaintiff who signs an authorization allowing a treating physician to speak to defense counsel about the plaintiff’s medical condition at issue should not be allowed to send a letter separately to the same physician requesting that the physician not speak to defense counsel. Permitting plaintiffs to make such a request would undermine the purpose of the Arons authorization and, at the very least, be confusing to the physician … .

Adding to the confusion is the statement “I value and wish to protect the confidentiality of our physician-patient relationship,” which may lead the physician to conclude that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s execution of the speaking authorization, plaintiff was not actually waiving the physician-patient privilege or the privacy protections afforded by HIPAA. …

… [T]he letter … might lead the physician to believe, wrongly, that plaintiff has a right to attend any informal interview with defense counsel. … [A] defendant’s attorney may ask treating physicians to participate in ex parte interviews, which by definition do not involve the plaintiff. While a physician may insist that the plaintiff be present for such an interview, that is a decision for the physician alone to make. Just as a defendant’s attorney has no right to interview the physician informally … , a plaintiff has no right to attend the interview (the plaintiff has only the right to ask the physician for permission to attend an interview).

Based on the above, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in directing plaintiff “to send correspondence to his treating physicians rescinding all prior letters sent containing the language that the [c]ourt has deemed to be confusing, misleading and/or intimidating.”  Murphy v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 06421, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Here the letters sent to treatment providers by plaintiff’s counsel, which accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations, improperly discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel was properly ordered to rescind the correspondence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant hospital’s motion for a directed verdict in this med mal case, determined the plaintiff’s expert did not establish the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof. Plaintiff had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) declining life-saving measures. Hospital personnel were not aware of the MOLST when plaintiff presented in the emergency room. When plaintiff became unresponsive, chest compressions were performed. Plaintiff was revived but he had suffered rib fractures. The plaintiff suffered a second heart attack and died seven hours later. The jury awarded damages for pain and suffering:

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for a directed verdict. “[V]iewing the evidence in [the] light most favorable to [plaintiff] and affording [plaintiff] the benefit of every inference,” we conclude that there was “no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of” plaintiff inasmuch as there was no expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof … . At trial, plaintiff’s expert described how a hospital could communicate a patient’s MOLST in order to ensure that it was honored, what hospitals were “allowed” to do, what he would “expect,” what “should” happen, and what “option[s]” were available, but he did not state what an accepted standard of care required. Further, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s expert articulated a standard of care, we conclude that he failed to opine that any such standard was violated under the specific circumstances of this case … . Cianci v University of Rochester, 2025 NY Slip Op 06492, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of vague expert testimony in a med mal case which failed to articulate a standard of care or a breach thereof.

 

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