You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment. Defendant’s allegation his foot slipped off the brake pedal because of rocks and pebbles under the floor mat did not present a nonnegligent explanation for striking plaintiff’s stopped vehicle:

[Defendant’s] assertion that he tried to apply the brakes on his vehicle to avoid a collision with the plaintiff’s vehicle, but his foot slipped off the brake pedal due to rocks and pebbles under the floor mat, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the accident, or whether the emergency doctrine applied … . Donnellan v LaMarche, 2023 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here defendant struck the rear of plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. Defendant’s explanation that his foot slipped off the brake pedal was not enough to raise a question of fact about either a nonnegligent explanation or the applicability of the emergency doctrine.

 

,

THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, reversing Supreme Court, determined the strict liability “notice-of-vicious-propensity” requirement applied to a restaurant which allowed patrons to bring their leashed dogs. Here the infant plaintiff was bitten by a patron’s dog. The negligence cause of action was not dismissed by Supreme Court pursuant to a recent Court of Appeals decision which held that a veterinarian’s office could be sued in negligence by a patron bitten by another patron’s dog. The Second Department refused to extend the Court of Appeals ruling re: a veterinarian to a restaurant owner:

On this appeal, we are presented with the opportunity to examine the extent to which the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541), serves to alter the standard applied in actions to recover damages for personal injuries caused by domesticated animals. Specifically, we address those actions commenced against individuals other than the animal’s owner. In Hewitt, the Court of Appeals engaged in an intensely fact-specific inquiry wherein it determined that the vicious propensities notice requirement is not necessary in a negligence action against a veterinary practice or other such places with “specialized knowledge relating to animal behavior” (id. at 548). We conclude that the holding of Hewitt, in line with the jurisprudence of this area of law, does not serve to carve out a path for ordinary negligence actions against all premises owners, in contravention of the vicious propensities notice requirement. Cantore v Costantine, 2023 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Although the Court of Appeals recently held standard negligence principles could be applied to a dog bite in a veterinarian’s office, here the strict liability “notice of vicious propensities” requirement applied to a restaurant owner who allows patrons to bring their leashed dogs into the restaurant.

 

,

THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY BUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE REMAINED VIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist should have been awarded summary judgment in this vehicle-bicycle accident case, but defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed:

On a motion for summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s liability, a plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative negligence to establish his or her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Although a plaintiff is not required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability … , the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence … . “In general, a motorist is required to keep a reasonably vigilant lookout for bicyclists, to sound the vehicle’s horn when a reasonably prudent person would do so in order to warn a bicyclist of danger, and to operate the vehicle with reasonable care to avoid colliding with anyone on the road. 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 in a dangerous position” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs … failed to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident. There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause … . Based upon the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their motion, triable issues of fact exist as to whether the injured plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout, whether he should have slowed down earlier given the traffic conditions, and whether he contributed to the happening of the accident … . Bornsztejn v Zito, 2023 NY Slip Op 05706, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident. Here the defendant driver failed to see was should have been seen, so the plaintiff bicyclist was entitled to summary judgment on liability. However there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent, so the comparative negligence affirmative defense remained viable on the issue of damages.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OWED PLAINITFF A DUTY OF CARE, A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the summary judgment motion by one of plaintiff’s treating physicians was properly granted in this medical malpractice case. Neither of plaintiff’s experts was qualified to assess the defendant medical oncologist’s (Hindenberg’s) care of plaintiff. Therefore the expert affidavits did not demonstrate defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Petillo), which is a question of law for the court:

… [I]n order to reach any discussion[s] about deviation from accepted medical practice, it is necessary first to establish the existence of a duty”… . “‘Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient'” … . “The existence and scope of a physician’s duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court” … . * * *

Petillo’s internal medicine and infectious disease expert failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist … . The expert did not claim to have any skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology. While the expert gave an opinion that Hindenburg departed from the standards of care applicable to internal medicine, Petillo was not referred to Hindenburg as an internist and Hindenburg did not treat Petillo as an internist, rendering the standard of care for an internist inapplicable.

Petillo’s surgical oncologist expert also failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist. This expert, a board-certified surgeon who practices in the field of surgical oncology, a specialty distinct from medical oncology, failed to establish that he had the skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology sufficient to provide a foundation to opine on the clinical standard of care and departures of a medical oncologist. Abruzzi v Maller, 2023 NY Slip Op 05704, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Before an expert can offer an admissible opinion on the care provided by a doctor in a medical malpractice case, the expert must demonstrate he or she is qualified to assess the care provided by the defendant doctor, here a medical oncologist. The failure to demonstrate the necessary qualifications to assess the care provided by the defendant specialist, constituted the failure to demonstrate the defendant doctor owed a duty to the plaintiff, a question of law for the court.

 

, , , ,

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town and police–officer defendants were entitled to summary judgment in this motorcycle-accident case. The plaintiff motorcyclist (Ronnie) was speeding when the defendant officers attempted to follow him with their emergency lights on. Both officers pulled back because of the plaintiff’s speed, losing sight of plaintiff. The officers came upon plaintiff in the woods after he had crashed. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants had demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment but found that the summary judgment motion was premature and should await further discovery. The Second Department held the motion was not premature because there was no indication additional evidence would be uncovered:

… [T]he defendants’ motion was not premature. The plaintiff “failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the [defendants]” … . Here, the officers directly involved in the attempt to stop Ronnie provided sworn affidavits, which were unequivocal and consistent with the other evidence in the case. There is no basis to conclude that depositions or other discovery would render a different account of the accident. The plaintiff’s mere hope or speculation that discovery would render evidence sufficient to defeat the defendants’ motion was not a sufficient basis to deny the motion … . Rojas v Town of Tuxedo, 2023 NY Slip Op 05751, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Where the evidence supports summary judgment and there is no indication further discovery will uncover additional evidence, the summary judgment motion should not be denied as “premature.”

 

,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PLYWOOD COVERING A SMALL HOLE; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell when his foot stuck a piece of plywood covering a hole. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendant failed to show, prima facie, that it lacked constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition … since it did not submit any evidence that the plywood was a latent defect that could not have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection … . Therefore, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200. Freyberg v Adelphi Univ., 2023 NY Slip Op 05589, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 200 causes of action are analyzed under standard negligence principles. Even though the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action was properly dismissed because the Industrial Code provision did not apply to the plywood covering a small hole, the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed because the defendant simply did not address it. To warrant dismissal the defendant was required to demonstrate it did not have constructive knowledge of the alleged tripping hazard.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE CORRECT NAME, ALTHOUGH SERVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED AND FILED NUNC PRO TUNC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should not have been dismissed. The original complaint misnamed defendant Mark Gennaro as Michael Gennaro. The amended complaint with the correct name was served after the statute of limitations had run. Pursuant to CPLR 305(c) the amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc:

“CPLR 305(c) authorizes the court, in its discretion, to ‘allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced'” … . “‘Where the motion is to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it should be granted even after the statute of limitations has run where (1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought'” … . “While CPLR 305(c) may be used to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it cannot be used after the expiration of the statute of limitations as a device to add or substitute an entirely new defendant who was not properly served” … . “The amendment may be made nunc pro tunc” … .

Here, the evidence established that the defendant, misnamed as Michael Gennaro in the original summons and complaint, was properly served with process within 120 days after the action was timely commenced and, thus, the Supreme Court obtained jurisdiction over the defendant (see CPLR 306-b …). Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the caption to be amended to correct the misnomer … . The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff was improperly attempting to name a new defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations, instead of merely correcting a misnomer, is without merit … .  Brewster v North Shore/LIJ Huntington Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05584, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was misnamed in the original complaint and the corrected complaint was not served until after the statute of limitations had run. The amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc pursuant to CPLR 305(c).

 

,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case. Although plaintiff could not identify the initial cause of his fall, plaintiff, in his deposition, testified he reached for a handrail, but there was none. Defendants did not present evidence there was a handrail or a handrail was not required. In the usual case, the inability to identify the cause of a fall is fatal to the action. But here there is a question of fact whether there was an additional proximate cause of the fall, i.e., the absence of a handrail:

… [T]he defendants established, prima facie, that a jury would be required to speculate that cement dust caused the plaintiff to fall. In support of their cross-motion, they submitted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that, after his fall, he noticed concrete dust on his face, hair, and uniform. The plaintiff admitted, however, that he did not notice the cement dust before his fall or see it on the landing of the stairs after his fall, and he failed to point to any additional evidence that might create a reasonable inference that the cement dust, rather than a misstep or loss of balance, was a proximate cause of his fall.

However, “[t]here can be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and [g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party, the defendants failed to establish that a handrail was present or was not required, or that its alleged absence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Adzei v Edward Bldrs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of his fall was not fatal to the action. There can be more than one proximate cause of a fall. Plaintiff testified he reached for a handrail but there was none and defendants presented no evidence of the presence or the need for a handrail.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Trinity demonstrated it was an out-of-possession landlord and the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was under the control of the lessee (LSSNY), plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff alleged the floor was slippery because it had been waxed:

Defendant established prima facie that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no contractual obligation to maintain the demised premises. Defendant also established prima facie, that the accident was not caused by a structural or design defect that violated a specific statutory safety provision … . * * *

… [P]laintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant possessed and controlled the leased premises for purposes of liability. Plaintiff’s averment that she saw defendant’s personnel freely using the location during the three years she worked at the premises was insufficient to demonstrate that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant relinquished complete control over the area before she fell … . Rodriguez v Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 05453, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for plaintiff’s fall on a slippery floor. The alleged defect was not structural and did not violate a statutory duty.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM A HORSE, COULD SUE UNDER STANDARD PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY IN THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined standard negligence principles, not strict liability, applied to this falling-off-a-horse case. Plaintiff, who fell from the horse when the horse stopped suddenly, assumed the risk of such an injury:

Defendant argues that, because the injury at issue was caused by a horse — a domestic animal — plaintiff may only sue in strict liability (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 [7]; … ). However, where a plaintiff suffers injuries stemming from horseback riding, such as here, the plaintiff may bring suit against the owner of the horse under traditional negligence standards … . Regardless, the primary assumption of risk doctrine functions as a “principle of no duty,” serving to “den[y] the existence of any underlying cause of action” … . Stanhope v Burke, 2023 NY Slip Op 05427, Third Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff could maintain a standard negligence action against to owner of a horse stemming from plaintiff’s fall from the horse, as opposed to a strict liability action pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law.

Practice Point: Whether plaintiff sued in negligence or strict liability, the assumption of risk doctrine would apply to preclude the action.

 

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