You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVIL RIGHTS CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983; THE DUTY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE UNDER THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW APPLIES ONLY TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE” FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE TEACHERS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence and civil rights causes of action against the school district in this Child Victims Act suit were properly dismissed, and the Social Services Law causes of action should have been dismissed. The complaints alleged sexual abuse by a teacher. The Third Department followed the Fourth Department holding that the extended statute of limitations in the Child Victims Act did not apply to the 42 USC 1983 civil rights causes of action. The Third Department also determined the teacher was not a “person legally responsible” for the plaintiffs such that the abuse-reporting requirement in the Social Services Law applied to the school district:

It is true that CPLR 214-g contains broad language. The statute nonetheless limits the types of causes of action — i.e., claims involving child sexual abuse — that are revived and then given a new limitations period. … 42 USC § 1983 does not create any independent, substantive rights but merely provides a vehicle to enforce such rights … . As the Fourth Department reasoned, to determine whether CPLR 214-g was a related revival statute would require a court to impermissibly consider the particular facts or particular legal theory advanced by a plaintiff in a section 1983 claim (see BL Doe 3 v Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 199 AD3d at 1422). Accordingly, we decline plaintiffs’ invitation to reject the Fourth Department’s approach as articulated in BL Doe 3 v Female Academy of the Sacred Heart … . * * *

… [C]ertain individuals must report cases of suspected abuse when reasonable cause exists that a child coming before them is an abused child (see Social Services Law § 413). Civil liability may be imposed upon these individuals who knowingly and willfully fail to make the requisite report (see Social Services Law § 420 [2]). … [F]or purposes of Social Services Law § 413, an “abused child” is one who is abused by a “parent or other person legally responsible for [a child’s] care” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e]; see Social Services Law § 412 [1]).

The School District maintains that plaintiffs’ statutory claim should have been dismissed because Wales [defendant teacher] was not a “person legally responsible” for plaintiffs’ care at the time of the alleged abuse. … [W]hether an individual constitutes a “person legally responsible” for a child within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 1012 (e) entails the examination of various factors … . The Court of Appeals cautioned … that “persons who assume fleeting or temporary care of a child . . . or those persons who provide extended daily care of children in institutional settings, such as teachers,” should not be interpreted as a “person legally responsible” for a child’s care … . … [T]he School District cannot be liable for any alleged failure to report any abuse by Wales … . Dolgas v Wales, 2023 NY Slip Op 01830, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here the school district was sued under the Child Victims Act alleging sexual abuse by a teacher. The civil rights causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 are not subject to the extended statute of limitations in the Child Victims Act and, therefore, those causes of action were properly dismissed.

Practice Point: A teacher is not a “person legally responsible” for the care of a child within the meaning of the Family Court Act. Therefore the causes of action under the Social Services Law alleging the school district failed to report abuse by a teacher should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. The village code requires that the board of trustees be given written notice of the defect in order to hold the village liable. Here there was a letter from the town engineer to the abutting homeowners notifying them of the sidewalk defect and requiring repair within 30 days. The majority held that letter did not meet the written notice requirements in the code, which must be strictly construed. the dissent disagreed:

Where … a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, neither actual nor constructive notice of a condition satisfies the prior written notice requirement … . Records generated by other agencies of the Village, outside of the strict construction of Code of the Village of Garden City § 132-2, fail to satisfy the requirements of the relevant prior written notice law … .. On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior written notice under the terms of the Village Code.

Our learned dissenting colleague concludes that the plaintiffs, through the submission of a letter on the Village’s letterhead dated May 11, 2015, from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village Board of Trustees had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defects. … The letter … states … that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and/or driveway apron adjacent to the defendant homeowners’ property indicated that concrete was in need of repair or replacement. The letter continues, stating that it was necessary to repair or replace a defective sidewalk and/or driveway apron for safety reasons and to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits against the property owners and the Village. For these reasons … the Village Board of Trustees had adopted a resolution … providing that property owners are required to repair or replace defective or damaged sidewalks and/or driveway aprons fronting their property within 30 days of receiving notice of such defects. Strictly construing the terms of the Village’s prior written notice law, as we must … that letter from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners does not constitute the giving of prior written notice to the Village Board of Trustees. … . Kolenda v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2023 NY Slip Op 01783, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village code required that written notice of a sidewalk defect be provided to the board of trustees. A letter from the village engineer to the abutting homeowners requiring repair of the defect did not meet the code’s written-notice requirements, which must be strictly construed. Therefore the village cannot be held liable for the slip and fall.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff did not know what the wet substance on the step was:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she slipped and fell on a wet step … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify the “precise nature of the wet substance upon which she allegedly slipped and fell cannot be equated with a failure to identify the cause of her fall” … . Diaz v SCG 502, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet step. Her inability to identify the wet substance was not an inability to identify the cause of her fall.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant restaurant (ABB) did not demonstrated when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had been last inspected prior to the fall. Therefore ABB did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition:

ABB … failed to demonstrate … that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Although ABB’s witness testified that the accident occurred five minutes after the witness had entered the restaurant and observed the floor to be dry, the plaintiff testified that the accident occurred at least one hour later, and ABB did not submit any evidence as to when it last inspected the area prior to the time when the plaintiff asserted the accident occurred … . Carey v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01773, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the defendants must show where the area of the fall was last inspected prior to the fall to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

 

, , ,

ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION, STRICT PRIVITY PRECLUDES THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES OF AN ESTATE FROM BRINGING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY WHO PLANNED THE ESTATE; THE ATTORNEY OWED NO DUTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the malpractice action by the prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate should have been dismissed because there was no privity between the beneficiaries and the attorney:

In the context of estate planning malpractice actions, strict privity applies to preclude a third party, such as beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries like plaintiffs, from asserting a claim against an attorney for professional negligence in the planning of an estate, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances … . While plaintiffs argue their claim against defendant attorneys is couched as one for simple negligence, as opposed to legal malpractice, plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to show that defendant attorneys owed plaintiffs a duty of care in the drafting of their client’s will and trust agreement. The strict privity requirement here protects estate planning attorneys against uncertainty and limitless liability in their practice … . Thus, plaintiffs’ negligence claim is unavailing for lack of factual allegations to demonstrate that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty.

Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient factual allegations in their amended complaint to indicate that circumstances of fraud, collusion and/or aiding and abetting exist in this case to override the strict privity rule. Plaintiffs have not alleged fraud with requisite specificity as, inter alia, there are no allegations defendants knowingly made material misrepresentations in the will and trust for the purpose of inducing justifiable reliance by their client (since deceased) upon such misrepresentations, and moreover the allegations made do not support favorable inferences in that regard … . Phillips v Murtha, 2023 NY Slip Op 01767, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Absent fraud or collusion, strict privity precludes a legal malpractice action by prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate. Here the attorney owed no duty to the prospective beneficiaries.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Dr. Subramanyam’s motion to set aside the verdict apportioning liability to him in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff experienced abdominal and was referred by her primary physician (defendant Dr. Selitsky) to Dr. Subramanyam for a gynecological exam. Dr. Subramanyam’ noted in his report that “no abnormalities” were found. Plaintiff argued the “no abnormalities” finding misled Dr. Selitsky causing a delay in diagnosis of plaintiff’s appendicitis:

We find that the record was insufficient to support the jury’s findings that Dr. Subramanyam’s notation of “no abnormalities” misled Dr. Selitsky, who was plaintiff’s primary care physician, and thereby delayed plaintiff’s treatment for appendicitis.

Defendant Dr. Selitsky, testified that she did not rely upon Dr. Subramanyam’s sonogram report in ruling in or out the possibility of appendicitis, a diagnosis she already had considered as part of her differential diagnosis. She further testified that her referral of plaintiff to Dr. Subramanyam was solely to determine whether the source of plaintiff’s pain was gynecological in origin. Furthermore, Dr. Selitsky testified that while she assumed that she had received a copy of the report, she could not recall reading it, and, if she had read it, when she did so. Dr. Subramanyam also testified that it was not within his role to provide recommendations in his report or advise physicians what they should do next. Ameziani v Subramanyam, 2023 NY Slip Op 01759, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Defendant primary care doctor referred plaintiff to defendant gynecologist to determine the cause of abdominal pain. The gynecologist noted in his report he found “no abnormalities.” Plaintiff alleged that notation misled the primary care physician causing delay in the diagnosis of appendicitis. The appellate division set aside the verdict against the gynecologist.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this pedestrian-car accident case should not have been granted. Although plaintiff pedestrian violated the Vehicle and Traffic law by crossing the street where there was no crosswalk, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant-driver failed to see what she should have seen:

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s own conduct in crossing the roadway outside of a crosswalk was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to exercise due care to avoid striking the plaintiff with her vehicle by failing to see that which, through the proper use of her senses, she should have seen (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146[a] …). Davis v Khalil, 2023 NY Slip Op 01659, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff pedestrian was struck by defendant driver crossing a road where there was no crosswalk in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. However, there was a question of fact whether defendant driver failed to see what she should have seen.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Lopez) was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff was involved in a collision which pushed his car into defendant Lopez’s car, which was parked along the curb. The fact that the Lopez car was parked in violation of parking regulations was not controlling:

Even assuming, as the plaintiff alleges, that Lopez’s vehicle was parked in violation of applicable regulations, no triable issue of fact was raised as to whether the location of the parked vehicle was a proximate cause of the accident … . Indeed, the plaintiff admitted in an affidavit that it was the impact of Wilson’s vehicle striking his vehicle that caused his vehicle to come into contact with Lopez’s vehicle .Reeves v Wilson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01698, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: The fact that defendant’s car was illegally parked played no role in the collision which pushed plaintiff’s car into defendants. The location of defendant’s car was not a proximate cause of the accident. The fact that the car was illegally parked did not translate into liability.

 

, ,

IN AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES AFTER DEFENDANT DEFAULTED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED LIABILITY ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have considered issues of liability in the inquest on damages after defendant’s default:

After conducting the inquest, the court found … that the plaintiff had failed to proffer credible evidence that the accident occurred or that she had sustained an injury that was caused by the defendants, and directed the dismissal of the complaint. …

By defaulting, the defendants admitted “all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … . As such, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability … . Youngja Lee v Hong Kong Supermarket, 2023 NY Slip Op 01668, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A judge should not consider issues of liability in an inquest on damages after the defendant’s default.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in this sidewalk slip and fall case, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, determined a provision of the master lease violated General Obligations Law 5-321:

General Obligations Law § 5-321 states that “[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The Court of Appeals, in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (42 NY2d 153 [1977]) and Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412 [2006]), established an exception to General Obligations Law § 5-321. Parties to a lease agreement may execute a provision requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord from the landlord’s own negligence. However, the lease must also contain an insurance provision “allocating the risk of liability to third parties” because “[c]ourts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance … . Insurance procured by the tenant in satisfaction of the indemnity clause provides the injured plaintiff with adequate recourse for the damages suffered … .

… Article 13 of the master lease requires Regent [the landlord] to be indemnified for all claims “provided however that the same shall not arise from the willful acts of Landlord during the term of this Lease.” On its face, we find that this provision violates General Obligations Law § 5-321. Bessios v Regent Assoc., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01583, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A lease which requires the landlord to be indemnified for its own negligence violates General Obligations Law 5-321 unless the lease also requires the tenant to procure insurance which will compensate the injured party for the landlord’s negligence.

 

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