You are here: / Negligence
, ,

WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY HAS TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT AND HAS CONDUCTED A TIMELY INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGATIONS, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO FILE ON TIME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim against the town should have been granted. Petitioner was convinced a neighbor had trapped her cat and taken the cat to the town animal shelter. She communicated with the shelter many times and ultimately petitioner sought to sue the town for conversion and replevin. The Second Department determined the late notice of claim would not prejudice the town because the town was aware of petitioner’s’ claims from the beginning and had conducted investigations of those claims. The fact that petitioner did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim did not justify denying leave to file:

Although the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, “where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Anghel v Town of Hempstead, 2024 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: This case illustrates that the most important factor in whether leave to file a late notice of claim against a municipality should be granted is whether the municipality had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim. Where there has been timely knowledge and a timely investigation by the municipality, the absence of a reasonable excuse for failure to timely file the notice of claim will be ignored.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL (LIABILITY AND DAMAGES) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES WAS RELEVANT TO HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages should have been granted. Plaintiff was crossing a street when she was struck by defendant’s vehicle which was making a left turn across the crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of defendant’s van. Plaintiff’s treating physician opined that the injury was consistent with plaintiff being in front of the van when she was struck. Because the injuries were relevant to the liability aspect of the trial, a unified trial was necessary:

Judges are encouraged to direct a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action to recover damages for personal injuries “where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … . “Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases” … . A unified trial is appropriate where the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries has “an important bearing on the issue of liability” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. The plaintiff and the defendant driver, the only witnesses to the accident, offered conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred, and the plaintiff demonstrated that evidence regarding the nature of her injuries was probative in determining how the accident occurred … . Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 2024 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant’s van in a crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of the van and obtained a defense verdict. Plaintiff’s injuries indicated she was struck by the front of the van. Plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Defendant suddenly opened the driver’s side door of his parked car and plaintiff struck defendant’s car. Opening the door without  making sure it is safe to do so is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability and dismissing defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1214, “[n]o person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.” Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting her affidavit, which demonstrated that [defendant] violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1214 by opening the door on the side of his vehicle adjacent to moving traffic when it was not reasonably safe to do so, and was negligent in failing to see what, by the reasonable use of his senses, he should have seen, and that his negligence proximately caused the accident … . Gil v Frisina, 2024 NY Slip Op 00407, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Opening the drive’s side door of a parked car without checking to see it is safe to do so is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant NYC Transit Authority was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s slip and fall action. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor of defendant’s bus. The evidence of when the floor was last inspected was insufficient to show a lack of constructive notice. And the video submitted by the defendant was inadmissible because it was not authenticated:

The deposition testimony of a dispatcher employed by the defendant merely referred to general pre-trip inspection procedures performed by drivers. The defendant failed to present any evidence regarding “specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the subject accident occurred” … .

Further, the defendant could not rely upon the video of the bus that it submitted on its motion so as to meet its prima facie burden, as the video was not authenticated, and thus, was not in admissible form … . Harrington v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 00297, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate a lack of construction notice of the condition in a slip and fall case, the defendant must submit evidence of a specific inspection of the area close in time to the fall. Evidence of general inspection practices is never enough.

Practice Point: In order to submit a video in evidence, it must be authenticated.

 

, , , ,

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.

 

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