You are here: / Negligence
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD A VERIFICATION IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this wrongful death action against the defendant city should not have been denied:

“Where there is no showing of prejudice to a municipality, the fact that a notice of claim was not verified by a claimant may be disregarded” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) for leave to amend the notice of claim to add a verification from the plaintiff’s attorney that the plaintiff lives in a different county than the attorney, as the City defendants failed to demonstrate that they would be prejudiced by the amendment … . Watts v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06276, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Where there is no prejudice to the municipality, the fact that a notice of claim was not verified can be disregarded.

 

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The lease indicated the landlord had responsibility for maintenance of the ramp where plaintiff fell:

… “[A]n out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord. The defendant’s submissions in support of its motion, including its written lease with Petco and a transcript of the deposition testimony of its principal, did not demonstrate that it was an out-of-possession landlord with respect to the subject ramp. The lease obligated the defendant to maintain all appurtenant exterior areas, including the parking area, and the defendant’s principal testified at his deposition that the ramp was part of the parking lot, which the defendant maintained … . Further, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether its allegedly negligent maintenance of the ramp was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident  … . Thepenier v BGTWO Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06272, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord can be liable for a slip and fall on the property depends on the terms of the lease. Here the landlord had the responsibility to maintain the parking lot ramp where plaintiff fell.

 

,

THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant county’s motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff allegedly tripped over a section of rebar protruding from a concrete island in a court parking lot. Although parking lots are not explicitly mentioned in the statute requiring written notice of a dangerous condition as a prerequisite for the county’s liability, the Second Department held that the parking lot served the function of a sidewalk and therefore was subject to the written notice requirement:

The County has a prior written notice statute which provides, in relevant part, that “‘[n]o civil action shall be maintained against the County for damages or injuries to person or property sustained by reason of any sidewalk . . . unless written notice of such defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition of such sidewalk [is given] . . . [and s]uch written notice shall specify the particular place and nature of such defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition . . . [and that n]otice required to be given as herein provided shall be made in writing by certified or registered mail directed to the Office of the County Attorney'” … . * * *

The County demonstrated … that its prior written notice statute applied here because the concrete island with the protruding metal “served the same functional purpose as a sidewalk” … . The County further demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect.  Sanchez v County of Nassau, 2023 NY Slip Op 06270, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Here the statute required written notice of a dangerous condition on a sidewalk before the county could be liable for a slip or trip and fall. The plaintiff tripped in a county parking lot. The parking lot was deemed the functional equivalent of a sidewalk, triggering the written-notice requirement.

 

, , ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which conferred immunity on nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, precluded the COVID-related negligence action against defendant nursing home. The Third Department ruled that the repeal of the EDTPA should not be applied retroactively. Therefore the statute was in effect at the relevant time. The Third Department further held that the evidence of proper COVID-19 precautions offered by the nursing home was not refuted by the plaintiff:

… [T]he ultimate repeal of the EDTPA contained no express indicator of retroactivity — rather, the Legislature simply stated that the repeal would “take effect immediately” … . * * *

Turning to plaintiff’s argument that retroactivity is appropriate because the repeal was remedial in nature, “[c]lassifying a statute as ‘remedial’ does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . Based upon all of the foregoing, and noting that the retroactive application of the repeal of the EDTPA would merely punish healthcare providers “for past conduct they cannot change — an objective [that has been] deemed illegitimate as a justification for retroactivity” … we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive … . Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06180, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) should not be applied retroactively to remove immunity related to COVID precautions conferred on a nursing home during the life of the statute.

 

,

IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident cause should have been granted. Defendant’s allegation plaintiff stopped suddenly did not raise a question of fact:

It is well established that a rear-end collision with a slowing or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle … .

… [D]efendant failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . Defendant failed to establish that she maintained a safe following distance (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a] … ) and that any repeated braking by plaintiff was not foreseeable due to the existence of the construction zone and 15 mile per hour speed limit. Defendant failed to establish that given the circumstances she could have “reasonably expected that traffic would continue unimpeded” … . While defendant claims that plaintiff made a sudden stop, a “claim by the rear driver that the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence” … . Ahmad v Behal, 2023 NY Slip Op 06196, First Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: In a rear-end collision case, alleging the car in front stopped suddenly does not defeat the presumption that the rear driver was negligent.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF STOOD UP FROM A DESK AND TRIPPED OVER THE BOTTOM DRAWER WHICH HAD PARTIALLY OPENED; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence action alleging plaintiff stood up from a desk and tripped on the bottom desk drawer should not have been dismissed. The defendant did not demonstrate the condition was open and obvious and did not demonstrate it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition:

According to the plaintiff, she was sitting behind a desk and when she got up, she tripped on the bottom desk drawer which, unbeknownst to her, had become ajar. …

A condition is open and obvious if it is “readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident” … . “The determination of whether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . …

A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’s accident … .  Cosme v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2023 NY Slip Op 06026, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Whether a condition is open and obvious depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here plaintiff alleged she didn’t know the bottom drawer of her desk had opened and she tripped over it when she stood up from the desk. There was a question of fact whether the condition was open and obvious. The fact that the defendant did not demonstrate when the desk had last been inspected raised a question of fact about whether the defendant had constructive notice of the condition.

 

, ,

THE CLAIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT MET THE PLEADING CRITERIA OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT; THE FOUR-YEAR TIME FRAME WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE; THE FACTS ALLEGED SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE NATURE OF THE DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined claimant sufficiently stated a sexual-abuse claim under the Child Victims Act:

The reality is that “in matters of sexual abuse involving minors, as recounted by survivors years after the fact, dates and times are sometimes approximate and incapable of calendrical exactitude” … .Where sexual abuse is alleged to have occurred several decades ago “when the claimant was a child, it is not reasonable to expect the claimant to be able to provide exact dates when each instance of abuse occurred, nor is it required” … . Under the particular circumstances of the case before us, where the events are alleged to have occurred several decades ago, when claimant was a child, we conclude that the four-year time frame pleaded is sufficient … . Accordingly, the Court of Claims should not have granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim failed to adequately state the time when the claim arose.

Also, contrary to defendant’s contention, claimant sufficiently states the nature of his claim. He alleges that between 1986 and 1990, when he was a minor, he was raped and sexually abused by numerous men in multiple incidents while he was lawfully at the premises; that the abuse was perpetrated “by both employees of [defendant] as well as members of the general public”; that the “majority of these incidents occurred at the premises, more specifically in the bathrooms, stairwells, tunnels, boiler room, and Kitty Carlisle Hart Theater”; that many of the perpetrators “were agents, servants and/or employees of [defendant]”; and that “[t]hese men were known among the community and the children as a sexual predator [sic] yet allowed unfettered access to children.” Claimant also alleges that abusers used their positions of power and authority provided by defendant “to be able to sexually abuse [him] and other boys” and that their abuse “was open and obvious.” Claimant further asserts that defendant negligently retained an abuser “in his position as teacher, coach, and counselor,” despite notice of his propensities, thereby allowing his abuse of claimant and other boys to continue. We conclude that these allegations are sufficient to provide defendant with “an indication of the manner in which . . . claimant was injured and how [defendant] was negligent” … , and thus “defendant cannot reasonably assert that it is unaware of the nature of the claim” … . Because the claim is sufficiently detailed to allow defendant “to investigate the claim and to reasonably infer the basis for its alleged liability” … , it satisfies the nature of the claim requirement of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Wright v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 06013, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The allegations of sexual abuse within a four-year time frame met the pleading criteria of Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) in that the allegations were sufficiently detailed to determine the nature of the claim and to allow investigation of the claim.

 

,

A DRIVER WHO HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE OTHER DRIVERS WILL OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS REQUIRING THEM TO YIELD; HERE DEFENDANT ENTERED AN INTERSECTION WITH A GREEN LIGHT AND PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF HIM; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant driver demonstrated he had the right-of-way when he entered the intersection with and green light and plaint made a left turn in front of him. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

“A driver who has the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that other drivers will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to the driver with the right-of-way” … . “Although a driver with a right-of-way also has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision, . . . a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … .

Here, the defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he had the right-of-way, the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way, and the defendant did not have sufficient time to react in order to avoid the collision … . The defendant, as the driver with the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that the plaintiff would obey the traffic laws which required her to yield … . Smith v Trail, 2023 NY Slip Op 06070, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: A driver who fails to take evasive action can be contributorily negligent. But here defendant entered the intersection with a green light and plaintiff made a left turn in front of him. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact whether defendant had time to take evasive action.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint alleging decedent, who was suffering shortness of breath, should have been provided an advance life support (ALS) ambulance sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred:

… [T]he allegations in the complaint sound in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendant liable for its failure to provide decedent with an advance life support (ALS) ambulance after being advised that decedent was suffering from shortness of breath. The type of ambulance provided by defendant “bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment,” and thus plaintiffs’ claims must be viewed within a medical malpractice framework … . The dispatcher would need to understand the significance of “shortness of breath,” have specialized knowledge of the equipment or devices that could treat or care for the possible conditions arising from this symptom and be familiar with accepted practice in providing an ALS ambulance … . Trofimova v Seniorcare Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05997, First Dept 11-21-23

Practice Point: Where the complaint alleges the need for and failure to provide an ambulance with advance life support, it sounds in medical malpractice, not negligence.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE TOWN NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED A SEWER MAIN CAUSING SEWAGE TO BACKFLOW INTO PLAINTIFFS’ HOME; AN INTENTIONAL ENTRY IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS; THEREFORE THE TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint which alleged the town negligently failed to maintain a sewer main causing sewage to backflow into plaintiffs’ home did not state a cause of action for trespass, which requires an intentional act:

Among other elements, a claim for trespass requires “an intentional entry” … . Intent, in this context, “is defined as intending the act which produces the unlawful intrusion, where the intrusion is an immediate or inevitable consequence of that act” … . Here, accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true … , we conclude that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action for trespass inasmuch as it failed to allege an intentional entry onto plaintiffs’ property … .  Drake v Village of Lima, 2023 NY Slip Op 05833, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the trespass cause of action was based upon the backflow of sewage into plaintiffs’ home allegedly caused by the negligent maintenance of a sewer main. Trespass requires an “Intentional entry” which was not alleged here.

 

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