You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPPRACTICE ACTION WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the expert affidavits were conclusory and did not address all the allegations made by plaintiff. Therefore defendant’s (St. Luke’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The expert nurse and expert neurologist on whose affidavits St. Luke’s relied merely averred in a conclusory manner that the decedent could not have been monitored in a way to prevent her fall, that St. Luke’s implemented every appropriate fall risk procedure before the decedent’s fall, and that the decedent’s fall and the resulting subdural hematoma were not substantial factors in causing the decedent’s death … . The expert nurse also did not submit the fall risk assessment or hospital fall prevention policy in accordance with which, she claimed, the decedent was monitored … . Because St. Luke’s did not carry its prima facie burden on its motion, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion with respect to those predicates, regardless of the sufficiency of the moving papers … .

As for the remaining predicates for plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim, St. Luke’s did not address them in its moving papers, nor did its experts address them in their affidavits. Accordingly, St. Luke’s did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing them … . Martir v St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04478, First Dept 8-31-23

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, the expert affidavits cannot be conclusory and must address all of the relevant allegations.

 

,

A MUNICIPALITY HAS A DUTY TO INSPECT TREES ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS EVEN IF THE TREES ARE NOT ON THE MUNICIPALITY’S LAND; HERE THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFFS CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s motion for summary judgment in this falling-tree traffic-accident case should not have been granted. Although the tree which fell on plaintiff’s car was on private property, it was adjacent to the road. A municipality has a duty to inspect trees adjacent to roads and the town failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the tree:

“A municipality’s duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition encompasses those trees, adjacent to the roads, which could reasonably be expected to pose a danger to travelers. However, liability will not attach unless the municipality had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and subsequently failed to take reasonable measures to correct the condition” … . “Municipalities also possess a common-law duty to inspect trees adjacent to their roadways” … .

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . “Where there is no evidence that the tree showed any visible, outward signs of decay prior to the accident, it cannot be said that the municipality had constructive notice of a defect. Rather, a manifestation of decay must be readily observable in order to give rise to a duty to prevent harm” … . Jourdain v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04421, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: A town has a duty to inspect trees which are adjacent to roads, even if the trees are on private property. Here the town did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition of the tree which fell on plaintiff’s car.

 

,

THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLL FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER 2020 DID NOT ONLY APPLY TO ACTIONS WHOSE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID toll of the statute of limitations rendered plaintiff’s negligence action timely, noting that the toll did not apply only to statutes of limitations which expired during the toll period:

Pursuant to CPLR 214(5), an action to recover damages for personal injuries is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. In Brash v Richards, this Court held that the executive orders “constitute a toll” of the filing deadlines applicable to litigation in New York courts (Brash v Richards, 195 AD3d 582, 582 … ). … [T]his toll of the statute of limitations did not only apply to statutes of limitations that expired between March 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020 … .

… [D]ue to the tolling provision of the executive orders, the statute of limitations within which the plaintiff was required to commence this action was tolled between March 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020 …  Thus, this action … was commenced against those defendants well within the statute of limitations. Williams v Ideal Food Basket, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04436, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The COVID toll of the statute of limitations from March to November 2020 applies to all actions, not only those whose statutes of limitations expired during that period of time.

Similar issue and result in Baker v 40 Wall St. Holdings Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 0179, Second Dept 4-3-24.

 

, ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice actions should not have been granted. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent was not properly treated for a stroke. The defendants’ experts did not address all the allegations in the bills of particulars and relied on a disputed fact:

… [T]he expert physician for the defendants …, failed to address all of the specific allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars … . Because [the] affirmation relied upon a disputed fact, specifically that the decedent’s condition was improving … , it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that.[defendants] did not deviate or depart from accepted medical practice or that such deviation or departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … . Hiegel v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04434, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action, at the summary judgment stage, the defense experts must address all the allegations in the bill of particulars and may not rely on facts which are disputed.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT INMATES FROM ASSAULTS BY OTHER INMATES, THAT DUTY DOES NOT EXTEND TO UNFORESEEABLE ATTACKS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims. determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this inmate-on-inmate assault case should have been granted. The complaint alleged the assault occurred because of the state’s negligent supervision of the inmates in a block yard:

“Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . “That duty does not, however, render the State an insurer of inmate safety,” and negligence cannot be established by the “mere occurrence of an inmate assault” … . Rather, the scope of the State’s duty is “limited to providing reasonable care to protect inmates from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable, i.e., those that [the State] knew or should have known” …. .

Here, in support of its motion, the State established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claim by demonstrating that the alleged assault upon the claimant was not reasonably foreseeable. The State’s submissions demonstrated that the claimant did not know his assailant, who unexpectedly engaged in a “surprise attack” against the claimant. Further, the State proffered evidence that it undertook security measures, including requiring every inmate entering the B Block yard to “go through a [m]agnetometer,” as well as subjecting inmates to random “pat frisks” and searches. Contrary to the determination of the Court of Claims, the State’s failure to employ the use of a particular magnetometer did not present a triable issue of fact … . Armwood v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04465, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Here the state demonstrated it took adequate steps to prevent inmates from bringing weapons into the block yard and the attack on claimant with a scalpel was not reasonably foreseeable. The state’s motion for summary judgment in this inmate-on-inmate assault case should have been granted.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to reargue the summary judgment motion in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had originally granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the ground it did not have written notice of the dangerous condition. After the motion to reargue was granted, Supreme Court denied the city’s motion. Because the motion to reargue did not present new information and merely repeated the earlier arguments, it should have been denied:

A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). “Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some other reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision” … . However, “[a] motion for leave to reargue is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally presented” … . * * *

In support of her motion for leave to reargue, the plaintiff merely repeated her earlier arguments and did not demonstrate that the Supreme Court had overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law in rendering the prior determination … . Hallett v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04367, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: A motion to reargue must be based on law or facts allegedly overlooked or misunderstood by the court. Here the motion merely repeated earlier arguments and, therefore, the motion should not have been granted.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; ONLY EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES WAS PRESENTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant shopping mall in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the oily patch in the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell. Plaintiff testified she saw the oily patch on the way into the mall and slipped and fell an hour later. The defendant presented evidence of its general cleaning and inspection practices, but did not demonstrate when the are was last cleaned or inspected:

To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice”… .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall . The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she saw the oily patch on the ground of the parking lot on her way into the shopping mall, approximately an hour before she slipped and fell after exiting the mall. The defendant’s property manager only testified about the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection procedures. Armenta v AAC Cross County Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04355, Second Dept. 8-23-23

Practice Point: For years slip and fall cases were reversed on this ground (no proof when the area was last cleaned or inspected) every week, now the reversals have slowed to a trickle but still …

 

, ,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to commence an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) should not have been denied without a hearing. Petitioner was injured when a hit and run driver struck the cab she was riding in. The issue was whether petitioner took adequate steps to learn the identity of the owner and operator of the cab:

MVAIC was created to compensate innocent victims of hit-and-run motor vehicle accidents … . Insurance Law § 5218 sets forth the procedure for applying to a court for leave to commence an action against MVAIC in a hit-and-run case. “This statute provides, inter alia, that a person may apply to a court for an order permitting an action against MVAIC when, as relevant here, there is a cause of action to recover damages for personal injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, and when the identity of the motor vehicle and of the operator and owner thereof cannot be ascertained” … . “If the court, after a hearing, is satisfied that, inter alia, all reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and of the owner and operator and either the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner and operator cannot be established, then it may issue an order permitting an action against MVAIC” … .

Supreme Court should not have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without first having conducted a hearing. * * * Given the efforts made by the petitioner, there are issues of fact as to whether, under the circumstances, her efforts to ascertain the owner and operator of the livery cab were reasonable. Matter of Benalcazar v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04376, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: Before the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation could be sued in this traffic accident case, the injured party (petitioner) was required take adequate steps to learn the identity of the owner and operator of the cab in which she was a passenger when the cab was struck by a hit and run driver. The efforts made by petitioner here were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue.

 

,

DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT LOST CONTROL AT 180 MPH, STRUCK A GUARD RAIL, WAS EJECTED AND DIED FROM HIS INJURIES; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT, RAISED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S USE OF THE CAR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined negligent entrustment causes of action should not have been dismissed. Defendant owned a high performance car (a Lamborghini) and allowed plaintiff’s decedent, who was 18, to drive it. Plaintiff’s decedent apparently lost control of the car at 180 mph, struck a guard rail, was ejected and died from his injuries. Defendant was a passenger at the time of the accident:

“The tort of negligent entrustment is based on the degree of knowledge the supplier of a chattel has or should have concerning the entrustee’s propensity to use the chattel in an improper or dangerous fashion” … . To establish a cause of action under a theory of negligent entrustment, the defendant must either have some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the person to whom a particular chattel is given which renders that person’s use of the chattel unreasonably dangerous, or some special knowledge as to a characteristic or defect peculiar to the chattel which renders it unreasonably dangerous … . “An owner of a motor vehicle may be liable for negligent entrustment if [he or she] was negligent in entrusting it to a person [he or she] knew, or in exercise of ordinary care should have known, was not competent to operate it” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent entrustment. Although the decedent’s possession of a driver license is a factor to be considered, the defendant nevertheless failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether he had special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the decedent which rendered his use of the Lamborghini unreasonably dangerous … . Shepard v Power, 2023 NY Slip Op 04330, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question of fact, raised by plaintiff’s expert, whether defendant’s allowing plaintiff’s decedent, 18, to drive defendant’s Lamborghini constituted negligent entrustment. Plaintiff’s decedent lost control at 180 mph, crashed and died from his injuries.

 

PLAINTIFF, AT HER DEPOSITION, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this stairway slip and fall, based upon her deposition testimony, could not identify the cause of her fall which required dismissal of the complaint:

“… [A] defendant can make its prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall without [resort to] speculation'” … . “‘[A] plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the fall is fatal to the cause of action, because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation'”  … . “‘Where it is just as likely that some other factor, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused [the plaintiff to fall], any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation'” …  .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which she identified a defect in another step than that from which she fell as the cause of her accident and admitted that she did not know what caused her to lose her balance and fall. Thus, any determination that the defect identified by the plaintiff was the proximate cause of her accident, rather than a misstep or loss of balance, would be based on speculation … . De Rose v Anna & Rose Realty Co., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04302, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: A slip and fall plaintiff who acknowledges in a deposition she does not know what caused her to fall loses the case.

 

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