You are here: / Negligence
, ,

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ITALIAN MANUFACTURER OF A HOSE USED AS A COMPONENT IN A DISHWASHER MADE AND SOLD BY A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have long-arm or personal jurisdiction over an Italian company which manufactured a hose used as a component in a dishwasher made and sold by a nonparty:

… [T]he defendant was an Italian corporation with its business located in that country. It manufactured, sold, and distributed its goods in Italy, and had no office or agent in New York. The plaintiff failed to show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in New York so as to subject it to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . The plaintiff also failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(3).

Since the defendant was not subject to the jurisdiction of New York, the plaintiff’s service of process upon it was not valid (see CPLR 313 …). Economy Premier Assur. Co. v Miflex 2 S.p.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 00303,Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff did not demonstrate the Italian company which manufactured a component of a dishwasher purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in New York. Therefore New York did not have long-arm or personal jurisdiction over the Italian company.

 

,

DEFENDANT SUPERMARKET DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GRAPES ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted; Defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the grapes on the floor because it presented no specific evidence of when the area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the fall:

While defendant showed that it did not create or have actual notice of loose grapes in the produce aisle at the time of plaintiff’s accident, defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to show, as a matter of law, that it lacked constructive notice of the condition. Specifically, defendant failed to show that its cleaning routine was followed on the day of the accident … . Its store manager testified generally that an employee was assigned to inspect and clean the produce aisle throughout the day and that he personally walked the aisles during the day, but he did not testify regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question on the day of plaintiff’s fall. A vice president testified that the cleaning protocols were verbal and were based on “common sense,” but did not offer any information as to what steps were taken during the last cleaning cycle prior to plaintiff’s accident, which also was not sufficient to establish lack of constructive notice on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the burden did not shift to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Polanco v 756 Jomo Food Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00284, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case the defendant must demonstrate a lack of constructive notice by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

, ,

ATTENDING PHYSICIAN NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT BASED UPON THE PHYSICIAN’S STATUS AS A SHAREHOLDER IN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH EMPLOYED THE PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT; $3 MILLION VERDICT EXCESSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department set aside the verdict against the attending physician and found the $3 million damages award excessive in this medical malpractice action. The attending physician, Tigges, could not be held vicariously liable fir the negligence of the physician’s assistant, Caputo, based on Tigges being a shareholder in the professional service corporation which employed Caputo. The First Department held the plaintiff should stipulate to damages in the amount of $500,000:

Dr. Tigges was not involved in plaintiff’s treatment during her admission, notwithstanding that he was often listed as the attending physician on her chart … . He was also not liable for Caputo’s conduct pursuant to Department of Health Regulations (10 NYCRR) § 94.2 or Business Corporation Law § 1505 (a). There is no indication that Dr. Tigges, and not another of the doctors at [defendant] OADC, was the doctor supervising Caputo at the time in question … .

We find that the $3 million jury award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation and should be reduced as indicated (see generally CPLR 5501[c] … ). Although none of the cases relied on by the parties are squarely on point, the subject award is well outside the range of awards in all of these cases … . Appleyard v Tigges, 2023 NY Slip Op 00260, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: The attending physician in this medical malpractice case could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the physician’s assistant on the ground that the attending physician was a shareholder in the professional service corporation which employed the physician’s assistant.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S KARAOKE BAR; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE TO INSTALL TEMPERED GLASS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT; BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, DEFENDANT 219 AVE. A, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant 219 Ave. A was an out-of-possession landlord which, by the terms of the lease, was not obligated to repair or maintain the premises where plaintiff’s fall occurred. Plaintiff was standing on a couch in defendant Planet Rose’s karaoke bar when she fell backwards through a storefront window:

… [T]he owner of Planet Rose acknowledged that when vandals smashed another window in the storefront years earlier, the glazier recommended tempered glass as the best option for a storefront, and she accepted that recommendation. She also testified that there were many times over the years that patrons stood on the couch, as shown in photographs posted on Planet Rose’s social media. Thus, the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendants were negligent in failing to use tempered glass in the window to prevent a foreseeable injury … .

… Given the evidence that patrons of the karaoke bar sometimes stood on the couch, plaintiff’s conduct was not extraordinary or unforeseeable, and it therefore cannot be said that the setup at the bar merely furnished the occasion for the harm … .

219 Ave. A demonstrated that it had relinquished sufficient control of the premises to be deemed an out-of-possession landlord, and as such, was not contractually obligated to make repairs or maintain the premises … . Accordingly, its liability is limited to claims “based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision,” which are not at issue here … . Kitziger v 219 Ave. A. NYC LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00239, First Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Because patrons of defendant karaoke bar stood on the couch to dance, plaintiff’s fall through the storefront window was foreseeable and the failure to install tempered glass may have been negligent. This was not a case where the condition (the glass storefront window) merely furnished the occasion for the accident, as opposed to a proximate cause. By the terms of the lease the out-of-possession landlord was responsible only for structural repairs which were not at issue.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PURSUE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE POLICY LIMITS AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed. It was alleged the defendant attorney, in this traffic accident case, failed to pursue damages in excess of the insurance-policy limits against the tortfeasor personally. Defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff would not have prevailed in an action against the tortfeasor personally:

“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “The plaintiff is required to plead actual, ascertainable damages that resulted from the attorneys’ negligence” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff had no actual or ascertainable damages. “The defendant must affirmatively demonstrate the absence of one of the elements of legal malpractice” … . The complaint alleged that the damages included the failure to pursue SUM benefits, as well as the failure to pursue recovery against the alleged tortfeasor. Since it was alleged … that the defendants’ legal malpractice prevented the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment against the alleged tortfeasor, the defendants had the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the plaintiff would not have prevailed against the alleged tortfeasor or that the alleged tortfeasor did not have personal assets such that his motorist insurance policy limit that was recovered in the amount of $50,000, was the maximum judgment that could have been obtained from him … . The defendants failed to do so. Chicas v Cassar, 2023 NY Slip Op 00202, Second Dept 1-18-23

Practice Point: Defendant attorney in this legal malpractice case did not demonstrate plaintiff would not have prevailed in an action against the tortfeasor personally in the underlying traffic accident case. Plaintiff alleged defendant attorney negligently failed to seek damages over and above the policy limits from the tortfeasor. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE VERDICT SHEET BEFORE THE VERDICT AND JUROR AFFIDAVITS ALLEGING CONFUSION ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verdict should not have been set aside on the ground of jury confusion. No objection was made to the verdict sheet until after the verdict and the juror affidavits alleging confusion should only be considered in extraordinary circumstances:

The trial court should not have set aside the verdict based on a determination that the verdict sheet was, on its face, unclear and confusing. None of the parties or the court perceived any lack of clarity until after the jury was discharged, and there was no evidence in the trial record of substantial juror confusion … . Although the court stated that it gave no consideration to the posttrial juror affidavits stating that they believed that they were supposed to deduct from the damage award the amount of plaintiff’s comparative fault, that was the only evidence of jury confusion provided by plaintiff. However, “[ j]uror affidavits should not be used to impeach a jury verdict absent extraordinary circumstances,” not present here …   Moreover, plaintiff did not object to the verdict sheet or the charge until after the jury was discharged, and therefore, waived such objections … . Suarez v Ades, 2023 NY Slip Op 00175, First Dept 1-12-23

Practice Point: The verdict should not have been set aside on jury-confusion grounds. No one objected to the verdict sheet before the verdict and the juror affidavits alleging confusion should only be considered in extraordinary circumstances not present in this case.

 

, ,

THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the terms of the lease raised a question of fact whether the out-of-possession landlord was required to repair nonstructural floor defects:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a ‘duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . “Where the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court” … . Here, according to the lease agreement, the landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” Contrary to the defendant’s contention, pursuant to the lease agreement, its duty to repair the floor was not limited to floor conditions which were structural in nature, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it had no duty to repair the alleged nonstructural condition at issue … . Weidner v Basser-Kaufman 228, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00126, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: The lease provided the out-of-possession landlord was required to “make all structural, exterior walls, floor and roof repairs and replacements to Tenant’s Building.” The landlord was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case on the ground the lease did not create a duty to make nonstructural floor repairs.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S GOOD-FAITH AFFIRMATION DID NOT INCLUDE DETAILS OF ANY EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND WAS THEREFORE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT TO A DEPOSITION UNDER THREAT OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion compelling defendant to appear for a deposition under threat of preclusion should not have been granted because plaintiffs’ counsel’s good-faith affirmation was inadequate:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place, and nature of the consultation as well as the issues discussed. Here, the affirmation of good faith submitted by the plaintiffs’ counsel in support of their motion to compel disclosure and for other related relief failed to provide any detail of their efforts to resolve the issues. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion should have been denied … . Muchnik v Mendez Trucking, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00100, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Pont: Here the affidavit plaintiffs’ counsel submitted did not detail the efforts made to resolve the discovery issue and was therefore inadequate. Therefore Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant’s deposition under threat of preclusion.

 

,

THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim in this road-defect slip and fall case should not have been granted:

… [T]he petitioner’s initial delay in serving a notice of claim upon the City was reasonable, as she provided evidence that she was incapacitated until April 2019 … . However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the additional nine-month delay between the time she was released from the hospital and the time she commenced this proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the petition failed to establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter … . The police accident report, the NYPD investigative documents, and the FOIL requests to the NYPD and the DOT did not contain facts from which it can be “readily inferred that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed” by the City … .

In addition, the petitioner failed to satisfy her initial burden of demonstrating that the City would not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay … . Matter of Salazar v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00095, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: Here the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. The nine-month delay was not explained; the city did not have timely notice of the potential lawsuit, and petitioner did not show the city would not be prejudiced by the delay.

 

, ,

​HERE THERE IS AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the matter should have been referred to the Workers’ Compensation Board and therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell at certain property owned by the defendants (hereinafter the property). Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment as a housekeeper/household employee at the property and that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy for the damages alleged in the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, as premature, without prejudice to renew.

Primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter the Board) and it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the Board … . “Where the issue of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law is in dispute, and a plaintiff fails to litigate that issue before the Board, a court should not express an opinion as to the availability of compensation, but should refer the matter to the Board because the Board’s disposition of the plaintiff’s compensation claim is a jurisdictional predicate to the civil action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Board for a hearing and determination as to whether the plaintiff is relegated to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Lall v Harnick, 2023 NY Slip Op 00080, Second Dept 1-11-23

Practice Point: Any question about whether plaintiff is entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits must be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Here in this slip and fall case Supreme Court should have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

 

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