You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

PETITIONER-PEDESTRIAN ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK HER COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED THROUGH REASONABLE EFFORTS; THEREFORE SHE COULD SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-pedestrian demonstrated the driver who violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, struck her and fled the scene could not be identified. Therefore she was entitled to sue the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC). The court noted that, although petitioner relied on a hearsay police report, the report could be considered because the MVAIC also relied on it:

Petitioner alleged that on March 4, 2021, she was injured as a pedestrian in the crosswalk after a two-motor-vehicle collision between a BMW and Cadillac. The police report stated that petitioner was struck by the Cadillac after its driver disobeyed a traffic light and collided with the BMW, and the driver of the Cadillac subsequently fled from the scene by foot. The police later discovered that the Cadillac’s license plate did not match the vehicle.

… [P]etitioner proffered … a police accident report pertaining to the incident, a letter from the BMW’s insurer disclaiming coverage on the ground that its insured driver did not disobey any traffic law, and a sworn Notice of Intention to Make a Claim (Notice of Intention) attesting that the Cadillac’s driver was unknown, and the vehicle had a fake license plate. … [T]hese documents were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 to commence an action against MVAIC … . Petitioner met her burden of demonstrating that the subject accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the Cadillac was not ascertainable through reasonable efforts … . Although a police report is generally inadmissible as hearsay, MVAIC also relied on it in opposing the petition, and thus it may be considered in support of the Notice of Intention .. . Matter of Richardson v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04950, Second Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into the proof required to demonstrate the identity of a driver involved in an accident cannot be ascertained, clearing the way for a suit against the MVAIC.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police officer injured in a car accident and the city suing for payments made for the officer’s salary and medical expenses had to share the $100,000 “per person”  policy-limit in the Safeco insurance policy:

… [T]here is a $100,000 policy limit for “each person” sustaining bodily injury. The policy provides that the limit of bodily injury liability for “each person” is the “maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, resulting from any one auto accident” for bodily injury not resulting in death of “any one person” (emphasis added). The City here asserted a claim against the tortfeasors pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c (6), which creates a cause of action for municipalities for reimbursement of “such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the police officer shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.” The municipality’s right to recover “is derived from its insured employee’s cause of action in negligence against the person causing such injury,” and the “right to bring the direct action is bottomed on the employee’s cause of action in negligence” … . … [T]he City’s statutory claim and plaintiff’s claim both result from the injuries sustained by plaintiff and are both included in the same $100,000 per person limit of liability in the policy … . Lewczyk v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 04867, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the insurance policy, the police officer injured in a traffic accident and the city seeking recovery of the related salary and medical-expense payments must share the $100,000 “per person” insurance-policy limit.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COUNSEL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEEK LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall action should have been dismissed. The slip and fall occurred in 2013. The plaintiff died in 2015.and the letters of administration were issued in 2021. Plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to move for substitution of a representative within a reasonable time warranted dismissal:

CPLR 1021 provides as follows: “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party . . . . If the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate . . . . [I]f the event requiring substitution is the death of a party, and timely substitution has not been made, the court, before proceeding further, shall, on such notice as it may in its discretion direct, order the persons interested in the decedent’s estate to show cause why the action or appeal should not be dismissed” (emphasis added).

In determining reasonableness, a court should consider the plaintiff’s diligence in seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the action is shown to have potential merit … . Here, the unexplained, more than five-year delay in seeking letters of administration shows a lack of diligence … . Further, no demonstration of a potentially meritorious cause of action was made. Neither the attorney affirmation, complaint, bill of particulars, nor supplemental bill of particulars constituted an affidavit of merit, as counsel had no personal knowledge of the facts of this case … . Since an affidavit of merit was not submitted and no reasonable justification for the delay in petitioning for letters of administration was provided, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Nargis’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it … . Mesniankina v 302 BBA, LLC2023 NY Slip Op 04765, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: If your client dies and you wait five years before substituting an administrator for the decedent, you risk dismissal pursuant to CPLR 1021.

 

UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the common law negligence cause of action against the bar (Catch 22) which allegedly served alcohol to the minor driver should have been dismissed. The driver was involved in an accident and plaintiff’s decedent, a passenger, was killed. The General Obligations Law causes of action premised on defendant’s allegedly serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person properly survived summary judgment. But the common law negligence cause of action would only apply to injuries which occurred on defendant’s property (not in a traffic accident which occurred after leaving defendant’s property):

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may be responsible for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest … . However, liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . There is no dispute that the motor vehicle accident at issue occurred on a public roadway hours after the decedent and [the driver] had left the area that was under the supervision and control of Catch 22, and thus, Catch 22 established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it … . Filc v 221 Someplace Else, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A bar which serves a visibly intoxicated person may be liable in negligence (as opposed to pursuant to the Dram Shop Act) when the intoxicated person causes injury on the bar’s property or in an area under the bar’s supervision and control. The negligence theory does not apply to traffic accidents which occur off premises.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A BUS WHICH VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY IN SNOWY CONDITIONS, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, a passenger on a bus which veered of the highway in snowy conditions, was entitled to summary judgment:

“‘An innocent passenger . . . who, in support of [his or] her motion for summary judgment, submits evidence that the accident resulted from the driver losing control of the vehicle, shifts the burden to the driver to come forward with an exculpatory explanation'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s affidavit and the bus driver’s admissions in a certified police accident report submitted in support of the motion … established that the bus driver lost control of the vehicle, and that the bus driver was aware of the snowy weather conditions, rendering the emergency doctrine inapplicable … . In his affidavit, the plaintiff stated that it was snowing when the bus left the bus station. Immediately before the accident, the plaintiff did not hear horns or the screeching of brakes, but did hear the bus driver state, “It’s bad.” The bus then swerved, left the roadway, and rolled over onto its passenger’s side in the center median of the highway. Additionally, the certified police accident report contains the bus driver’s statement that he lost control because of a slippery highway. Bing Kang Chen v S & F Travel, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04746, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A passenger on a bus which veers off the highway in snowy conditions is entitled to summary judgment in the absence of any evidence that something other than the snowy conditions caused the accident.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S PARKED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE VIOLATED TRAFFIC RULES RE: PARKING SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s car was parked when it was struck from behind by defendant. The fact that plaintiff may have parked in a manner which violated the NYC traffic rules speaks only to plaintiff’s comparative negligence, which is not relevant at the summary judgment stage:

… [P]laintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of her affidavit, in which she averred that her vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle while the plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on the shoulder of the roadway (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a] …). In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff proximately caused the accident by violating 34 RCNY 4-07(b)(1) and 4-08(e)(1) [NYC Traffic Rules re: parking] speaks to her comparative negligence, which was not the subject of this motion and is insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . Whaley v Carvana N.Y. City, 2023 NY Slip Op 04794, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s parked car was struck from behind and defendant did not offer a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability. The fact that plaintiff may have violated parking rules speaks to comparative negligence and is not relevant to liability.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the homeowner’s exemption applied to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action and whether he was liable under the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Although the plaintiff was working on defendant’s private residence, plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by defendant:

Although the defendant demonstrated that the work being performed at his single-family home was directly related to its residential use … , the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not direct or control the plaintiff’s work. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which the plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, the defendant owned a business that employed the plaintiff to perform carpentry work on decks and that the defendant instructed the plaintiff on which boards to remove and replace at the defendant’s home. The plaintiff also testified that the defendant provided all of the materials and tools that the plaintiff used for the work at the defendant’s home. Thus, the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he directed or controlled the plaintiff’s work … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not from a dangerous premises condition …. . [Defendant] failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, since he failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Walsh v Kenny, 2023 NY Slip Op 04791, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was working on his employer’s (the defendant’s) private residence when injured. The defendant provided the materials and there was evidence he supervised the work. Therefore questions of fact precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action (pursuant to the homeowner’s exemption to the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action), as well as on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the Labor Law causes of action could not be brough against the defendant (Ahern) which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned. Ahern was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work, so the Labor Law causes of action did not apply. However Ahern could be liable under a negligence theory:

… [O]nly contractors and owners and their agents can be held liable for Labor Law violations … . To be an “agent” of an owner or contractor, a party must have the ability to supervise and control the worksite and/or plaintiff’s work … . Here, plaintiff does not dispute that Ahern was neither an owner nor contractor within the meaning of the statute. The complaint only alleges that Ahern owned and maintained the aerial lift, not that Ahern exercised any supervision or control over the worksite … .

Plaintiff’s complaint, however, sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligence against Ahern. Plaintiff alleges that the aerial lift owned by Ahern malfunctioned, causing plaintiff’s coworker to spray plaintiff with the power washer. … [E]ven if plaintiff’s coworker proximately caused plaintiff’s injury, Ahern is not absolved of liability as “there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … . Kull v Ahern Rentals, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04721, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Here the company which rented out the aerial lift which malfunctioned was not an agent of the owner or contractor and exercised no control over the work. Therefore the Labor Law was not triggered. However, the company may be liable under a straight negligence theory.

 

, , ,

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

,

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN PLAINTIFF’S CAR MADE A LEFT TURN AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO SEE DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff pedestrian was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when defendant made left turn and struck plaintiff from behind. Plaintiff could not be held comparatively negligent for failing to see and avoid the defendant‘s vehicle:

Plaintiff pedestrian established prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that she was crossing Broadway, within the crosswalk, with a “walk” sign in her favor, after looking both ways, when defendant’s vehicle, which was making a left turn onto Broadway, struck her from behind on her right side, pinning and dragging plaintiff under the vehicle and causing severe injuries to her right leg … . Plaintiff’s version of the accident is supported by the police report showing damage solely to the front driver side of the defendant’s vehicle following the accident and the medical reports and photographs showing the injuries to plaintiff’s right leg.

A plaintiff, who is struck by a vehicle that approaches from behind and to the right after turning left into the crosswalk where it struck plaintiff, may not be held comparatively negligent based on a theory that she could have seen and avoided the vehicle through the exercise of ordinary care … Shin v Ljulja, 2023 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff pedestrian in a crosswalk was not comparatively negligent for not seeing defendant’s car making a left turn and striking plaintiff from behind.

 

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