The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined this medical malpractice action against one of the defendants, Dr. Velasquez, should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific and goes through the evidence in granular detail. Roth v Velasquez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04915, First Dept 8-6-26
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging negligence per se and the res ipsa loquitur cause of action in this ceiling-collapse case should have been dismissed. The negligence per se cause of action alleged a violation of Multiple Dwelling Las section 78(1) which does not impose a specific duty on the landlord. The res ipsa loquitur cause of action failed, in part, because the landlord did not have exclusive control of the plaintiff’s bathroom and the leaking bathtub in the apartment above:
A cause of action alleging negligence per se predicated on a violation of Multiple Dwelling Law § 78(1) cannot lie, as the statute imposes only a general duty to maintain a multiple dwelling and does not impose a specific duty upon a landlord … .
“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of an accident where the plaintiff can show that: (1) the event is of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality that caused the injury is within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) the injury is not the result of any voluntary action by the plaintiff” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that her bathroom ceiling and a bathtub in an upstairs apartment were within the defendants’ exclusive control … . The plaintiff also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to her comparative fault, as she entered the bathroom to scrub the bathtub despite being concerned about the imminent collapse of the ceiling before it fell … . Williams v SI 1688 Realty, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04896, Second Dept 8-5-26
Practice Point: Multiple Dwelling Law 78(1) imposes a general duty to maintain a multiple dwelling but does not impose a specific duty upon a landlord. Therefore it could not be the basis of a negligence per se cause of action against the landlord in this ceiling-collapse case.
Practice Point: The res ipsa loquitur cause of action did not lie in this ceiling collapse case because the landlord did not have exclusive control over the bathroom where the ceiling fell or the leaking bathtub in the apartment above.
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendants” (Petrocelli’s) motion for summary judgment in this case stemming from an injury at a construction site. Petrocelli was the construction manager. There was a question of fact whether Petrocelli could be deemed an agent of the general contractor such that it could be liable for a dangerous condition at the site:
While a construction manager is generally not considered a contractor responsible for the safety of the workers at a construction site pursuant to Labor Law § 200, “it may nonetheless become responsible if it has been delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor, or if it functions as an agent of the owner of the premises” … . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . A role of general supervision “is insufficient to impose liability under the Labor Law” … .
Here, the Petrocelli defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not exercise a significant degree of control and supervision of the construction site such that it was not delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor … , and failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition because they did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the “dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time to afford [them] a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . Vasquez v 1719 27 ST, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04894, Second Dept 8-5-26
Practice Point: If a construction manager acts as an agent for the general contractor and therefore exercises supervisory control over a work site, the construction manager may be liable for a dangerous condition at the work site.
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this traffic-accident action stemming from defendant’s striking a 12-year-old pedestrian (J.W.) should have been dismissed. J.W. suddenly ran into defendant driver’s (Li’s) highway lane:
Li testified that he was driving south in the right lane of the Hutchinson River Parkway in the Bronx at about 45 miles per hour when he first saw J.W. standing 100 feet in front of him in a grassy area on the side of the highway to his right. Li testified that when the vehicle approached, J.W. made a “running gesture” and began to run towards the vehicle when it was approximately two car lengths away. Li did not brake or honk his horn, but did take his foot off the gas pedal and was in the process of moving into the left lane to move away from J.W. when J.W. entered the highway, at which point the front right side of the van struck him. Police conducted sobriety tests at the scene and allowed Li to drive the van from the scene. He did not receive a ticket, violation, or citation as a result of the collision. It is undisputed that pedestrians are prohibited from occupying the location where J.W. was traversing (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-a).
Defendants established prima facie that J.W.’s act of running into the highway unlawfully was the sole proximate cause of the collision … . Li’s testimony shows that he was confronted with a sudden and unforeseen situation in which he was forced to make a split second decision and could not “weigh alternative courses of action” such that “he cannot reasonably be held to the same conduct as one who has had full opportunity to reflect” … . “While it is often a jury question whether a person’s reaction to an emergency was reasonable, summary resolution is possible when the individual presents sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of his or her actions and there is no opposing evidentiary showing sufficient to raise a legitimate question of fact on the issue” … . Danielle W. v Li, 2026 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 7-30-26
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add the insurer which paid plaintiffs’ losses as a plaintiff. The statute of limitations had passed for a separate subrogation action:
While an application to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 lies within the court’s sound discretion, “there is no sound basis in law to grant amendment pursuant to CPLR 3025(c) to add an untimely claim” … . Thus, a pleading cannot be amended to assert a new claim for which the statute of limitations has expired unless the assertion of the new claim is deemed to relate back to an earlier operative pleading that was filed while the new claim still would have been timely (see id.). Whether a new claim relates back to the time of the filing of the earlier pleading is governed by CPLR 203(f), which provides:
“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”
In determining whether the original pleading provides the requisite notice of the transactions or occurrences underlying the proposed new claim, a court “should not . . . look[] beyond the four corners of the original pleading” … . * * *
… [T]he “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” referenced in CPLR 203(f), and to be proved in support of the subrogation claim interposed in the proposed [amended complaint] — defendants’ management of the renovation project — are precisely the same “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” alleged in the earlier complaints. As plaintiffs point out, the only effect of the assertion of the subrogation claim is to shift the claim for a portion of the damages allegedly caused by defendants’ alleged wrongdoing from the … plaintiffs to … their insurer. 217 Trust v VIR Constr., Inc, 2026 NY Slip Op 04824, First Dept 7-30-26
Practice Point: Here plaintiffs’ insurer, which paid plaintiffs for losses which are the subject of the complaint, was properly added to the complaint as a plaintiff, after the statute of limitations for a separate subrogation action had passed, pursuant to the relation-back doctrine.
The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the State’s snowplow driver was not engaged in work on the highway when it made an illegal right turn on a city street, striking claimant’s car. Therefore the “reckless disregard” negligence standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103(b) was not applicable. The Fourth Department granted the claim and sent the action back for a trial on damages only:
Here, the evidence at trial established that the snowplow driver’s route consisted of a series of exits on I-190 in Buffalo, including the on-ramps and off-ramps, and that he would routinely travel on city streets, including the street on which the accident occurred, to access the next ramp on his route. Inasmuch as the testimony reflects that the snowplow driver did not have the authority to plow or salt city streets such as the one where the accident occurred, we conclude that, at the time of the accident, he “was not driving on part of his plow route but instead was traveling from one part of his route to another by way of a [municipal] road that he was not responsible for plowing” … .
Inasmuch as the snowplow driver admitted that he was aware that he was not permitted to make a right turn against a red light at the subject intersection, admitted that he was aware that other drivers treated that portion of road as having two northbound lanes, and nonetheless elected to make an illegal right turn on red from the left-hand lane, we conclude that the evidence established that the snowplow driver was negligent … . We further conclude that claimant was not contributorily negligent inasmuch as he was lawfully on the roadway and stopped at a red light when struck … . Bushley v New York State Thruway Auth., 2026 NY Slip Op 04686, Fourth Dept 7-24-26
Practice Point: Here the State’s snowplow driver was not driving on a plow route when he made an illegal right turn and struck plaintiff’s car. The “reckless disregard” standard, which would have applied if the snowplow were engaged in work on a plow route, did not apply. Ordinary negligence is the applicable standard.
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the General Municipal Law standard for negligence includes the requirement that the municipal defendant have notice of the dangerous condition. General Municipal Law section 205-e provides police officers with a cause of action for negligence where a well-developed body of law is violated. The question raised by the appeal of the denial of the municipal defendant’s motion for summary judgment is whether the notice requirement in a General Municipal Law 205-e action is the same as at common law. The Fourth Department held that it is: The police officer slipped and fell on icy metal stairs but failed to demonstrate the municipal defendant had notice of the condition … .
[U]nder General Municipal Law § 205-e, a defendant is, in fact, entitled to notice of the dangerous condition at issue before liability may attach. Indeed, courts have made plain that “[n]otice is clearly material to recovery under the statute … . * * *
… [A]ccepting plaintiffs’ contention that notice is not required would unjustifiably expand the duty owed by premises owners to one discrete class of putative plaintiffs beyond any reasonable interpretation contemplated by the language of the statute, existing precedent or established policy. We decline to impose liability without fault upon those legally responsible for premises conditions when police officers are present, especially when the statute was not designed to provide them with greater protections than ordinary citizens. Alternatively stated, the duty owed by landowners to police officers under the statute is not broader than it is for any other class of individuals … . * * *
… [P]laintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact with respect to the issue of notice; indeed, plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion did not address the issue of notice at all … . Plaintiffs also have not contended that the icy condition at issue here was sufficiently recurrent, or was of such a longstane been aware of the need to more promptly remedy it … . Whelan v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth.,2026 NY Slip Op 04624, Fourth Dept 7-24-26
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, noted that a “failure to warn” of a dangerous condition, and a “failure to maintain a premises in a reasonably safe condition” are distinct causes of action and a plaintiff may proceed on one or both theories. Here the “failure to warn” cause of action was properly dismissed. But the “failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” cause of action should not have been dismissed. It was alleged mopping was negligently done leaving excess water on the floor:
… [D]efendants had the initial burden on their motion of establishing that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition and that they did not have actual or constructive notice thereof … . We conclude that defendants failed to meet that burden inasmuch as they failed to establish that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition by negligently mopping the area and leaving excess water on the floor … * * * Failure to warn of an alleged hazard is a separate and distinct theory of liability from the failure to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition, and a plaintiff may proceed on one or both of those theories … . Brennan v Kandon, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04685, Fourth Dept 7-24-26
Practice Point: In the context of a slip and fall, “failure to warn” and “failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition” are distinct causes of action and a plaintiff may proceed on one or both.
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver did not demonstrate she could not have seen plaintiff pedestrian and could not have avoided striking plaintiff as he attempted to cross the road:
… [D]efendant, “as the movant for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing as a matter of law that [she] was not negligent or that, even if [she] was negligent, [her] negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . Defendant failed, however, to meet her initial burden with respect to either her negligence or proximate cause. Although the evidence submitted by defendant established that she was not speeding, was not impaired and had not committed any traffic violations, defendant’s evidence included, inter alia, deposition testimony from a driver of an eastbound vehicle who observed plaintiff begin to cross his lanes of traffic, and that driver testified that he was able to swerve and avoid colliding with plaintiff. Defendant’s submissions indicate that plaintiff then proceeded through the median area between the eastbound and westbound lanes and then attempted to cross the westbound lanes, whereupon he collided with defendant’s vehicle.
We agree with plaintiff that defendant’s own evidence raises triable issues of fact whether she ” ‘could have seen [plaintiff] before the accident and failed to exercise due care to avoid the accident’ ” (Uhteg, 200 AD3d at 1697). In Uhteg, as here, “the pedestrian had already crossed a few lanes of traffic and had done so at a pace faster than a walk but not fully a run” … . Moreover, there is no evidence that defendant’s view of the oncoming lanes or median area was obscured … . Koff v Lawson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04582, Fourth Dept 7-24-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of what a defendant must demonstrate for summary judgment where defendant driver strikes plaintiff pedestrian as plaintiff attempted to cross the road.
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice cause of action alleging the negligent failure to diagnose cancer was rendered timely by a discovery rule which reaches back ten months before the discovery rule was enacted:
The causes of action arising from negligent failure to diagnose cancer accrued on October 23, 2014, when the defendants failed to advise [plaintiff] to submit to additional testing, such as a mammogram. However, the 2018 enactment also includes a provision providing for the revival of certain causes of action, such that an action may be commenced within six months after the effective date, i.e., by July 31, 2018, when it alleges a failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor, and when it became time-barred within 10 months prior to the effective date of the statute—January 31, 2018, that is, on or after March 31, 2017 (see L 2018, ch 1, § 4…). Here, the causes of action qualify for revival pursuant to that provision, as they became time-barred in April 2017, within the 10-month period prior to the act’s effective date, and this action was commenced on June 11, 2018, prior to the July 31, 2018 deadline … . Rhodes v Dilena, 2026 NY Slip Op 04444, Second Dept 7-15-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the application of the discovery rule enacted in 2018 providing for the revival of a medical malpractice action alleging negligent failure to diagnose cancer after the statute of limitations expired.
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy