You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the franchisor, here Toyota, for the negligence of the franchisee car dealership, Plaza Toyota, should have been dismissed. After the plaintiff’s car was worked on at Plaza Toyota, a front wheel fell off:

Supreme Court erred in denying the Toyota defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them. “In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred” … .

Here, affidavits submitted by the Toyota defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that they lacked the requisite control over the manner in which Plaza Toyota serviced vehicles … . Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02492, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A franchisor can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a franchisee only if the franchisor exercises control over the franchisee’s daily operations, not the case here.

 

,

STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO SEE IS NEGLIGENCE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case should have been granted. Striking a pedestrian is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which is negligence per se. In addition a driver is expected to see what there is to be seen. Defendant was in the middle lane of traffic when plaintiff was struck:

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of evidence that established the defendant driver was negligent in failing to see what there was to be seen and in failing to exercise due care in avoiding the collision with the plaintiff (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a] …).. By the defendant driver’s own admissions at his deposition, he never saw the plaintiff before the defendants’ vehicle struck the plaintiff; in fact, upon impact, the defendant driver thought “maybe a tire or something . . . hit [the defendants’] car,” and when he first saw the plaintiff, the plaintiff was lying on the pavement. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the road was flat, the weather was clear, and visibility was good. Further, the defendants’ vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of three southbound lanes, when it made contact with the plaintiff who was crossing from the right side of the road, “giving the defendant driver ample time to notice plaintiff crossing the street” … . Beityaaghoob v Klein, 2023 NY Slip Op 02488, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Under the facts in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case, striking plaintiff pedestrian was negligence per se (a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law) and defendant’s acknowledged failure to see the plaintiff constituted negligence. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part is not to be considered. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s (Walter’s) motion to renew in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Walter moved to be substituted as plaintiff. Initially the motion was denied but upon Walter’s motion to renew, the motion was granted:

“A motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . However, “[w]hile it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation”… . “Thus, the court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion”… . “While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the failure, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse” … .

“If a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]). “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” … . “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” … . “Even if the plaintiff’s explanation for the delay is not satisfactory, the court may still grant the motion for substitution if there is no showing of prejudice and there is potential merit to the action, in light of the strong public policy in favor of disposing of matters on the merits” … . Tollinchi v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 02554, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: The criteria for a motion to renes, and for a motion to be substituted as a party after the death of a party explained in some depth. Here the motion to renew and the motion to be substituted as a party should have been denied.

 

,

THE RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE TAKING A MANDATORY COLLEGE FITNESS-EDUCATION COURSE PRECLUDED HER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COLLEGE ALLEGING INJURIES SUSTAINED TAKING THE COURSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release signed by the plaintiff precluded her suit against defendant community college (DCC) for alleged injuries sustained in a mandatory fitness education course:

The plaintiff enrolled in a wellness and fitness education course, which was a mandatory course that had to be taken as part of her general studies degree program at Dutchess Community College. The plaintiff informed the course instructor of her prior back injuries, and signed a release which, in relevant part, “discharge[d] Dutchess Community College from all liability for . . . any claim of injury to [the plaintiff’s] person . . . whether harm is caused by the negligence of the releasees or otherwise.” The release further provided that it was “intended to be broad and inclusive in keeping with state laws.” * * *

“Where the language of an exculpatory agreement expresses in unequivocal terms the intention of the parties to relieve a defendant of liability for its own negligence, the agreement will be enforced” … . “Although a defendant has the initial burden of establishing that it has been released from any claims, a signed release ‘shifts the burden of going forward . . . to the [plaintiff] to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release'” … . Sjogren v Board of Trustees of Dutchess Community Coll., 2023 NY Slip Op 02551, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: An unambiguous release will preclude a lawsuit absent fraud sufficient to void the agreement.

 

, ,

WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the two actions stemming from a single traffic accident should have been consolidated. Decedent leased a truck from defendant Travis and had an accident. Decedent sued Travis alleging negligent maintenance of the truck, Travis sued decedent for the damage to the truck. The two actions should have been consolidated:

CPLR 602(b) provides that “[w]here an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in another court and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the supreme court.” Although a motion pursuant to CPLR 602 “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, consolidation or joinder for trial is favored to avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent an injustice which would result from divergent decisions based on the same facts. Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion . . . to consolidate [or for a joint trial] should be granted, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … .

Here, the two actions involve significant common questions of law and fact; a failure to try them jointly would result in a duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions; and there has been no showing of prejudice by Travez … . Sherpa v Ford Motor Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 02550, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where two actions arise from the same traffic accident and a party is a defendant in one action and a plaintiff in the other, the actions should be consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602(b).

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that video surveillance of the plaintiff taken prior to the deposition in this traffic accident case, and after a discovery order requiring disclosure of video surveillance had been issued, could not be used in support of a summary judgment motion re: “serious injury” or at trial. However, video surveillance taken after the deposition need not be provided to the plaintiff by any specific deadline and was not precluded:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s noncompliance with the plaintiff’s discovery notice and two court orders, over an extended period of time, was willful and strategic with regard to the [pre-deposition] surveillance video. … [T]he defendant should have been precluded from using the … surveillance video of the plaintiff …, as it was not disclosed prior to the plaintiff’s deposition … . * * *

CPLR 3101(i) contains no language prohibiting the acquisition of surveillance video of a party after that party has testified at a deposition. Nor does any decisional authority. Indeed, CPLR 3101(h) recognizes that disclosure is a continuing obligation, requiring parties to amend or supplement discovery responses when later information is obtained that renders an earlier response inaccurate or incomplete when made or when the prior response, though correct and complete when made, is materially no longer so. And parties are not required to be more forthcoming with surveillance videos than they would with any ordinary discovery material under CPLR 3101(a) … .

That said, CPLR 3101(i) provides no fixed deadline for the disclosure of post-deposition surveillance video footage … . Rather, trial courts may regulate issues of timing through their preliminary and compliance conference orders … , subject to their authority and discretion to manage their calendars and determine whether to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126(2) for any noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines … . Pizzo v Lustig, 2023 NY Slip Op 02541, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here surveillance video of the plaintiff which was gathered before the deposition and after a disclosure order was precluded from both the summary judgment stage and the trial. There is no specific deadline for turning over video surveillance of the plaintiff gathered after deposition and that video evidence was not precluded.

 

,

​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition and did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the condition. A metal gate, which should have been secured, fell on plaintiff:

… [T]estimony, if credited, indicates that the gate was not secured to the track, thereby raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the manager created the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to properly secure the gate at the end of his shift that day … .

… [T]he service manager testified at his deposition that it was his regular practice to inspect the area of the gate “two [or] three times a day,” but the defendant offered no evidence as to when the gate was last inspected on the date of the plaintiff’s injuries. The service manager’s testimony, which “merely referenced his general inspection practices” and failed to indicate when the area where the accident occurred “was last inspected . . . relative to the accident,” was insufficient to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice … . Pena v Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Del., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02530, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here a metal gate which should have been secured fell on plaintiff. The defendant did not demonstrate when the area where the accident occurred was last inspected. Therefore defendant failed to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the unsecured gate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in a slip and fall: Rolon v Arden 29, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02545, Second Dept 5-10-23

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case. There was no evidence when the area was last inspected prior to fall. And there was evidence the mat and warning sign placed in the area were inadequate:

… [D]efendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition caused by the wet and slippery floor where plaintiff fell, as they did not submit any evidence establishing when they last inspected the vestibule on the day of the accident … . Rather, the evidence shows that the building’s superintendent was aware of the hazardous condition and tried to address it with a mat and caution sign. In addition, plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether these precautions were reasonable under the circumstances. Although a landlord is not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the floor of its premises by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by the building superintendent’s placement of an unreasonably short anti-slip floor mat on known wet, glossy tiles on a newly laid floor … . Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to check to see if the wet floor warning sign remained in place after it was initially placed as a precautionary device. Rodriguez v KWIK Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02471, First Dept 5-9-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case the defendant must show the area was inspected close in time to the fall in order to prove a lack of constructive notice.

Practice Point: Even where, as here, the defendant attempts to address the dangerous condition (placing a mat and a warning sign in the area of the wet floor0 a question of fact may be raised about whether the measures taken were adequate.

Similar constructive-notice issue and result in Gomez v Samaritan Daytop Vil., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02458, First Dept 5-9-23

 

, ,

THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT, NOTING A SPLIT OF AUTHORITY, DETERMINED THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SET FORTH ALLEGATIONS WHICH DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HER AND THE COUNTY; THEREFORE THE COUNTY COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF WHILE IN FOSTER CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and noting a split of authority, determined plaintiff in this Child Victims Act action alleging sexual abuse while in foster care did not demonstrate a “special relationship” with the county. The decision includes a concise explanation of the complex intertwined issues controlling governmental tort liability:

In Mark G. v Sabol (93 NY2d 710 [1999]), the Court of Appeals analyzed provisions in the Social Services Law designed to protect foster children and to prevent child abuse generally and concluded that a private right of action was not consistent with the legislative scheme (see id. at 720-722; see also McLean, 12 NY3d at 201). Notably, in McLean, the Court of Appeals cited Mark G. approvingly … . We therefore conclude that plaintiff cannot establish a special duty based upon the County’s alleged violation of its duties under the Social Services Law. We note that, to the extent that there is case law in the First and Second Departments that would support a contrary conclusion, we decline to follow those cases … .

… [P]laintiff cannot establish the requisite special relationship between the parties based upon the County’s alleged voluntary assumption of a duty that generated justifiable reliance on her part … . To establish such a special relationship, a plaintiff must show “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987] …). ” ‘[A]ll four elements must be present for a special duty to attach’ ” … .

… “[T]he failure to perform a statutory duty, or the negligent performance of that duty, cannot be equated with the breach of a duty voluntarily assumed” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff sufficiently alleged the existence of a duty on the part of the County apart from its statutory obligations, we … conclude that plaintiff failed to set forth allegations that, if proven, would establish each of the four elements articulated in Cuffy … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2023 NY Slip Op 02445, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff sued the county alleging sexual abuse while in foster care. Noting a split of authority, the Fourth Department held the plaintiff did not set forth allegations demonstrating a special relationship between her and the county, a prerequisite for governmental tort liability. The decision includes a concise explanation of the confusing, intetwined issues surrounding governmental tort liability. 

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION, THE JUDGE CORRECTLY STRUCK INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE FROM THE COMPLAINT BUT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEALED THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT MAKING WRITTEN FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge was correct in striking inflammatory language from this Child Victims Act complaint but should not have sealed the complaint:

Pursuant to CPLR 3024 (b), “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading.” “[I]t is generally held that the test under this section is whether the allegation is relevant, in an evidentiary sense, to the controversy and, therefore, admissible at trial” … . Although “factual averments about sexual abuse are necessary in any action where those allegations form the predicate for an award of damages, to state a cause of action generally and pursuant to the CVA [Child Victims Act] specifically” … , the language struck by the court does not contain any factual averments necessary to plaintiff’s causes of action. Further, the court’s decision to strike the inflammatory language does not preclude plaintiff from attempting to prove at the trial stage that defendant committed acts of sexual abuse against her. We thus conclude that “there is no prejudice to plaintiff as a result of the order, whereas if [the language is] not stricken prejudice may result to defendant” … .

We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting that part of the cross-motion seeking to seal the complaint without making “a written finding of good cause, . . . specify[ing] the grounds thereof,” as required by 22 NYCRR 216.1 (a) … . LG 101 Doe v Wos, 2023 NY Slip Op 02404, Fourth Dept 5-5-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victims Act case, the judge properly struck inflammatory language from the complaint but should not have sealed the complaint absent written findings of good cause.

 

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