You are here: / Negligence
,

AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS SERVICED, A TIRE (WHEEL?) FELL OFF, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment based upon the res ipsa loquitur theory of liability should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ car was inspected by defendant car dealership and the tires (wheels?) were removed and reattached. When plaintiff Kathleen Becchetti drove the car from the dealership one of the tires (wheels?) detached causing an accident:

For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, a plaintiff must establish three conditions: “[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Regarding the second element, exclusive control is not a rigid rule and has been applied in circumstances when “the accident occurred after the instrumentality left the defendant’s control, where it was shown that the defendant had exclusive control at the time of the alleged act of negligence” … . The plaintiff does not need to eliminate all other causes, but, rather, must show that their likelihood is reduced so that the defendants’ conduct is more probably the cause … . The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s control was sufficiently exclusive to fairly rule out some other agency causing the purported defect … . Once the plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof on these three elements, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits the factfinder to infer negligence … .

Here, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that a tire detachment, such as the one at issue here, does not occur in the absence of negligence … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the vehicle was in the defendants’ exclusive control at the time of the alleged act of negligence … and that the plaintiffs did not contribute to the event … . …

… [S]ince this is the type of “rare” and “exceptional” res ipsa loquitur case “in which no facts are left for determination” … , the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Bicchetti v Atlantic Toyota, 2023 NY Slip Op 03219, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: Here a wheel fell off plaintiffs’ car after the car was serviced, causing an accident. Although the car was not in the exclusive control of the dealership when the wheel fell off, the negligence occurred when the dealership had exclusive control. This was deemed a rare case warranting summary judgment.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PEDIATRIC PRACTICE SUBMITTED EXPERT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED UNTIL A YEAR AFTER PLAINTIFF LEFT DEFENDANT’S CARE; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pediatric practice in this medical malpractice action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged the failure to diagnose scoliosis. Defendant submitted evidence that adolescent scoliosis could not have been diagnosed until a year after plaintiff left defendant’s care. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address that issue:

… S.V. [defendant pediatric practice] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an affirmation of a physician board certified in orthopedic surgery. The expert opined that the care and treatment rendered by S.V.’s employees did not deviate from accepted medical practice, and that the injured plaintiff’s adolescent idiopathic scoliosis condition could not have been diagnosed until he reached adolescence, which did not occur for at least one year after he left S.V.’s care, during which time the injured plaintiff tested negative for the condition … . In opposition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affirmation of a physician, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ expert failed to address the specific assertion of S.V.’s expert that the injured plaintiff did not develop adolescent idiopathic scoliosis until after he left S.V.’s care, and was otherwise speculative, conclusory, and unsupported by the record … . Lagatta v Rivera, 2023 NY Slip Op 03227, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff’s expert did not address defendant’s expert’s prima facie proof on a dispositive issue. In that circumstance, defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

 

, ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANT, IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PROXIMATE CAUSE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF, IN OPPOSITION, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was diagnosed with a degenerative spine but died hours later of a heart attack:

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, the defendant has the initial burden of establishing either that there was no departure from accepted community standards of practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … . “Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact’ as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” … . “‘Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions'” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affirmation of an expert who opined, based upon his review of, inter alia, the decedent’s medical records, among other things, that the decedent exhibited symptoms consistent with a myocardial infarction when he presented to the hospital emergency department, as well as a large scar from a prior cardiac surgery, and that the defendants departed from the accepted standard of medical care by failing to perform a cardiac workup on the decedent at that time … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert were not vague or conclusory … . Moreover, the plaintiff was not required to raise a triable issue of fact as to the element of proximate cause, as the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to that element … . Kielb v Bascara, 2023 NY Slip Op 03226, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: In opposition to a defense motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, plaintiff need not address issues on which defendant did not make out a prima facie case. Here defendant did not make out a prima facie case on the issue of proximate cause and plaintiff, therefore, did not need to address that issue in opposition.

Similar issues and result in Lopresti v Alzoobaee, 2023 NY Slip Op 03228, Second Dept 6-14-23 (failure to diagnose testicular cancer; inadequate attempt to address proximate cause by submitting an expert affidavit with reply papers).

 

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON BLACK ICE WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the black ice in the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell. Defendant did not submit evidence of when the area was last cleaned or inspected:

“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Accordingly, a property owner seeking summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case “has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” … . “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition. The defendant provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the subject area prior to the plaintiff’s fall, and there are triable issues of fact as to whether the alleged ice condition had existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that the defendant could have discovered and corrected it … . Edwards v Genting N.Y., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03223, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: To demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition in a slip and fall case, a property owner must submit proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

,

THE FLOOR IN THE BATHROOM WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD RECENTLY BEEN MOPPED; THE DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE DID NOT PROVE THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE WARNING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant grocery store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The bathroom floor where plaintiff fell had been mopped recently. There were questions of fact whether there was an adequate warning about the condition of the floor:

The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of the motion raised triable issues of fact as to whether Food Parade provided any warning about a potentially hazardous condition in the bathroom and whether any warning that was provided adequately gave notice that there was a hazardous condition inside the bathroom … . Darginsky v Food Parade, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03222, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor. Defendant did not demonstrate there was an adequate warning of the condition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined plaintiffs (charitable foundation) stated a cause of action against defendants (investment bank) for negligent supervision of an employee who allegedly defrauded the foundation of $25 million. Plaintiffs were not customers of defendants (investment bank). Rather, plaintiffs were approached by defendants’ employee to invest $25 million, allegedly as part of a fraudulent scheme to cover the employee’s losses. The argument that plaintiffs could not sue because they were not defendants’ customers was rejected by the majority:

… [T]he complaint adequately alleged that defendants were on notice of the employee’s propensity to commit fraud prior to his interactions with plaintiffs and their resulting losses. * * *

When an employer has notice of its employee’s propensity to engage in tortious conduct, yet retains and fails to reasonably supervise such employee, the employer may become liable for injuries thereafter proximately caused by its negligent supervision and retention … . As every Department of the Appellate Division has recognized, a defendant is on notice of an employee’s propensity to engage in tortious conduct when it knows or should know of the employee’s tendency to engage in such conduct … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs were not customers of defendants, as that term is typically understood, but plaintiffs alleged that they were prospective customers who were solicited by [defendants’ employee] to participate in a financing arrangement related to one of defendants’ legitimate business deals, supported by defendants’ genuine documentation and information, which he was given access to by defendants as part of his employment. We hold that these allegations support the existence of a duty on the part of defendants to non-negligently supervise [the employee] for plaintiff’s benefit … . Moore Charitable Found. v PJT Partners, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03185, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: Here the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent supervision against an investment bank based on fraud allegedly committed by a bank employee, even though the plaintiffs were not customers of the bank. The Court of Appeals found a duty to supervise the employee for the plaintiffs’ benefit.

 

,

IN A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, VERBAL NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, EVEN IF REDUCED TO WRITING, DOES NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined the defendant city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect and rejected the allegation that the city had verbal notice that may have been reduced to writing:

… [P]laintiff and the cross-claim defendants never contested the City’s “proof that it had not received prior written notice of the defect, asserting, instead, that such notice was unnecessary” because the City had actual notice … . However, “it is well settled that verbal or telephonic communications to a municipal body, even if reduced to writing, do not satisfy a prior written notice requirement” … . Runge v City of N. Tonawanda, 2023 NY Slip Op 03123, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: In a sidewalk slip and fall case against a municipality, verbal notice of the defect, even if reduced to writing, does not satisfy the written notice requirement.

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN THIS EMERGENCY-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant police officer acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others in this emergency-vehicle traffic accident case. Defendant police officer was responding to a call concerning a burglar alarm and was driving without emergency lights at 70 mph on a sparsely populated rural two-lane road with a 55 mph speed-limit when plaintiff attempted a left turn and the collision occurred:

… [D]fendant submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff, who testified that as plaintiff approached the intersection from the two-lane, hilly, wet road, he did not see any other vehicles when he activated his left turn signal. Plaintiff testified that he began his left turn and was already in the process thereof when he first noticed defendant’s vehicle approaching his vehicle. Contrary to the dissent’s position, plaintiff maintains that defendant failed to yield to plaintiff’s right-of-way and did not concede the issue. Plaintiff further testified that defendant’s vehicle was coming toward his vehicle at a “high rate of speed” and did not have on any headlights, siren or flashing lights. While there was evidence that defendant attempted to brake before colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle, there was undisputed evidence that defendant’s vehicle was traveling 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone just prior to the collision and that defendant was still traveling 47 miles per hour at the time of impact with plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant submitted his own deposition testimony which established that at the time of the accident defendant was responding to a police dispatch call of a “possible burglar alarm.” Defendant further testified that he was not sure whether he was responding to an emergency situation and only knew at the time that he was responding to “an alarm” at an address. 

From the dissent:

… [T]he evidence submitted by defendant established that he was traveling no more than 70 miles per hour when responding to the emergency, and that the posted speed limit in the area is 55 miles per hour. Data retrieved from the “black box” in the police vehicle showed that defendant started slowing down five seconds before the collision, decreasing his speed to 47 miles per hour by the time of impact. It is well settled that speeding by a police officer while operating an emergency vehicle during an emergency operation “certainly cannot alone constitute a predicate for liability, since it is expressly privileged under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b) (3)” … and the record here reveals no other conduct allegedly engaged in by defendant that made it ” ‘highly probable that harm would follow’ ” … . Gernatt v Gregoire, 2023 NY Slip Op 03094, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: Even though plaintiff was convicted of failing to yield the right-of-way, the majority held there was a question of fact whether defendant police officer acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The officer was driving 70 mph on a sparsely populated rural road with a 55 mph speed limit, without emergency lights, when plaintiff attempted a left turn. The two-justice dissent argued the officer’s speeding was not enough to raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s decedent’s primary care physician (PCP) did not prove whether or when the decedent was informed of the foreign object (a sponge) which was left in decedent’s pelvis after surgery. The PCP’s affidavit relied on custom or habit evidence, which was not sufficient. Therefore defendants did not prove whether or when decedent was informed of the foreign object. The complaint should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

“[E]vidence of habit has, since the days of the common-law reports, generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions because one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given circumstances is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances arise again” … . “The applicability of this doctrine is limited to cases where the proof demonstrates a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances . . . as opposed to conduct however frequent yet likely to vary from time to time depending upon the surrounding circumstances” … .

In order to establish the admissibility of the PCP’s habit evidence, defendants were required to establish that the PCP engaged in a routine practice of informing patients of the results of their diagnostic procedures and that his practice did not vary from patient to patient … . We conclude that defendants failed to do so. The affidavit of decedent’s PCP, submitted in support of the motions, explicitly concedes that the manner in which he informs patients of the results of diagnostic procedures varies. * * *

Inasmuch as defendants failed to establish that decedent was or should have been aware of the presence of the foreign body more than one year prior to commencing this action, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to aver evidentiary facts establishing that the limitations period had not expired, that it was tolled, or that an exception to the statute of limitations applied … . Baker v Eastern Niagara Hosp., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03090, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: The evidence of defendant physician’s custom or habit of informing patients of the presence of a foreign object was insufficient. Therefore this medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. Defendant did not prove whether or when decedent was informed of the foreign object.

 

THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FLOWER POT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate the flower pot over which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over a white flowerpot located next to a white column on the landing of premises owned by the defendant. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that, on the day at issue, she was standing on the landing outside the defendant’s front door speaking with the defendant, who was standing in the doorway. The plaintiff testified that when the defendant moved the outer screen door toward her, she stepped back into the object, lost her balance, and fell from the landing. …

… “[W]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “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” … . Therefore, “[w]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … .

… [T]he defendant failed to establish … the alleged condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident … . Evans v Fields, 2023 NY Slip Op 03000, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: When defendant property owner opened the screen door, plaintiff stepped back, tripped on a flower pot and fell down the stairs. Under the circumstances, there is a question of fact whether the flower pot was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.

 

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