You are here: / Negligence
, ,

IN THESE TWO CASES, INTRUDERS ENTERED AN APARTMENT BUILDING THROUGH EXTERIOR DOORS WHICH, ALLEGEDLY, WERE UNLOCKED AND MURDERED VICTIMS WHO WERE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED; THE FACT THAT THE VICTIMS WERE TARGETED WAS NOT AN “INTERVENING ACT” WHICH RELIEVED THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Second Department and reversing the First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the fact that the murder victims were targeted did not relieve the landlord, here the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), of liability for the alleged failure to provide exterior doors with functioning locks:

… [W]hen the issue of proximate cause involves an intervening act, “liability turns on whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” … . It is “[o]nly where ‘the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct,’ [that it] may possibly ‘break[ ] the causal nexus’ ” … . But “[a]n intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent” … .

Here, the risk created by the nonfunctioning door locks—that intruders would gain access to the building and harm residents—is exactly the “risk that came to fruition” … . It was not the trial court’s role, on summary judgment, to assess the fact-bound question of whether the intruders … would have persevered in their attacks had the doors been securely locked. This is not to say that the sophistication and planning of an attack is irrelevant to the factfinder’s determination of proximate cause, or even that it could never rise to such a degree that it would sever the proximate causal link as a matter of law … . But neither [scenario here] approaches that level. Scurry v New York City Hous. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 02752, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: The fact that the victims were specifically targeted by intruders who entered the apartment buildings through doors alleged to have been unlocked did not relieve the landlord of liability under an “intervening act” theory. The requirement that exterior doors be locked addresses the risk at issue in these cases.

 

, , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NYC ADMININSTRATIVE CODE MAKES TENANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM SIDEWALKS, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO SO; THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALSO MAKES PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL; THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY STATED DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE FROM THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant, 185th Operating, was not liable for a sidewalk ice and snow slip and fall. Although the NYC Administrative Code makes tenants responsible for removing ice and snow from sidewalks, it does not impose tort liability for a failure to do so. Here the lease explicitly stated the tenant is not responsible for clearing ice and snow:

Although the applicable statute requires tenants to clear snow and ice from the sidewalks around their premises, the statute does not impose tort liability for noncompliance (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-123[a] …). Furthermore, Administrative Code § 7-210(a), which requires property owners to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property, does not impose liability on 185 Operating, as 185 Operating is a tenant of the premises, not the owner. Not only did 185th Operating’s lease with defendant owner … specifically state that 185th Operating was not responsible for maintaining the sidewalks adjacent to the premises, but [the owner’s] lease with defendant Staples …, a tenant occupying the same building as 185th Operating, expressly made Staples responsible for clearing snow and ice from the sidewalk where the icy condition had occurred.

The record does not present any evidence that 185th Operating’s earlier voluntary snow removal created or exacerbated a hazardous condition that then caused plaintiff’s injury … . Cruz v Heights Broadway, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02612, First Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Here the lease specifically stated the defendant tenant was not responsible for removing ice and snow from the sidewalk. The NYC Administrative Code requires tenants to remove ice and snow but does not impose tort liability for the failure to do so. The code also requires owners to remove ice and snow. The tenant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED PRIOR TO FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE CONDITION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant building owner, 797 Broadway, did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the alleged loose elevator threshold plate over which plaintiff slipped and fell:

… 797 Broadway submitted the sworn affidavit of David Fallati, who … acted as the property manager for the building. Fallati stated that he visited the building twice a week, “including the time period of the alleged incident.” According to Fallati, he did not observe, or receive complaints about, any tripping hazards near the elevator threshold area where the accident occurred. We find that this proof was insufficient to establish that 797 Broadway lacked constructive notice of the condition of the threshold plate. Unlike trip-and-fall cases where the specific area in question was inspected on the date of the accident … . Fallati’s vague affidavit, in which he only stated generally that his inspections occurred twice per week, did not indicate when he had last inspected the elevator threshold area prior to plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the Fallati affidavit failed to eliminate all factual questions “as to whether the alleged dangerous condition . . . existed for a sufficient period of time prior to plaintiff’s fall to permit [797 Broadway] to discover it and take remedial action” … . Lloyd v 797 Broadway Group, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02573, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Without sufficient proof when the area of the slip and fall was last inspected the defendant cannot demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition.

 

, ,

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.

 

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