You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the out-of-possession landlord was required under the terms of the lease to repair structural defects in the roof and walls and there was a question of fact whether such defects caused a crack in the floor. The cracked floor was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition which cause a load of tines in a payloader to fall and injure plaintiff:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when tires that were being moved by a forklift struck him when they fell from the forklift after it drove over a crack in the concrete floor. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the complaint asserted a negligence cause of action against Estes Express Lines (defendant), which owned the premises on which plaintiff was injured, alleging that defendant negligently permitted a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that contributed to his injury, i.e., the crack in the concrete floor. * * *

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendant was liable based on its contractual obligation to maintain the structural integrity of the roof and walls. … [T]he court …. properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. … [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit from one of plaintiff’s former colleagues and from a code enforcement officer, who each averred that the damage to the floor may have been caused by water damage or water infiltration due to poor maintenance of the roof and walls. Plaintiff’s former colleague further averred that defendant had conducted annual inspections of the property and had previously repaired damage to the floor of the premises. Thus, there is a question of fact concerning defendant’s liability for defects in the condition of the floor … . Weaver v Deronde Tire Supply, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07328, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord is liable for injury caused by dangerous conditions on the property can be determined by the terms of the lease. Here the lease required the landlord to repair structural defects in the roof and walls. Plaintiff alleged water entered the premises through those structural defects causing a crack in the floor which contributed to his injury. Plaintiff’s allegations survived summary judgment.

 

, , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this dog-bite case were not entitled to summary judgment, the action was not frivolous, and defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. In addition, the summary judgment motion, made before discovery, was deemed premature. The court found there were questions of fact whether defendants, including the landlord (held to an ordinary negligence standard) were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The relationships among the parties and the unsuccessful arguments made by defendants in support of summary judgment are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… “[A]n owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities” … . “Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … .

… “[A] landlord who, with knowledge that a prospective tenant has a vicious dog which will be kept on the premises, nonetheless leases the premises to such tenant without taking reasonable measures, by pertinent provisions in the lease or otherwise, to protect persons who might be on the premises from being attacked by the dog may be held liable [under a negligence standard] to a person who while thereafter on the premises is bitten by the dog” … . When, “during the term of the leasehold[,] a landlord becomes aware of the fact that [the] tenant is harboring an animal with vicious propensities, [the landlord] owes a duty to protect third persons from injury . . . if [the landlord] ‘had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal’ ” … . Michael P. v Dombroski, 2022 NY Slip Op 07318, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: A landlord who is aware of a dog’s vicious propensities can be held liable in a dog-bite case under a standard negligence theory.

 

, ,

THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in this dog-bite case by adding a negligence cause of action was properly denied. The Court of Appeals recently held that a veterinarian could be liable for a dog-bite under a negligence theory where a dog in the veterinarian’s waiting room bit a customer. Here the dog was owned by an animal society and had been placed with defendant O’Rourke until the society could find someone to adopt him:

Although O’Rourke does not own the dog that bit plaintiff, “[a]n owner’s strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of a dog ‘extends to a person who harbors the animal although not its owner’ ” … . * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, … [plaintiff could assert] a negligence cause of action against O’Rourke, … plaintiff would still have to establish in support of her negligence cause of action that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s alleged “vicious propensities” … . … “[T]he vicious propensity notice rule has been applied to animal owners who are held to a strict liability standard, as well as to certain non-pet owners—such as landlords who rent to pet owners—under a negligence standard … .

… [P]laintiff’s proposed negligence cause of action against O’Rourke does not allege that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities; instead, it alleges that O’Rourke was negligent because she did not “investigate the subject dog accepted from the foster care program . . . before introducing it to her property, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the property which she had a nondelegable duty to keep reasonably safe.” The proposed complaint therefore fails to state a viable negligence cause of action against O’Rourke. Cicero v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 07316, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals recently held a veterinarian could be liable under a standard negligence theory for a dog-bite which occurs in the veterinarian’s waiting room because of the specialized knowledge of animal behavior attributed to a veterinarian. The negligence standard does not apply to a person who is harboring a dog for an animal society until someone adopts the dog. In that case, the strict liability (requiring knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities) standard still applies.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant in this pedestrian-vehicle-accident case was not required to disclose privileged medical (mental health) information which was provided to the sentencing court in the related criminal case as a “mitigation report:”

“CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes discovery of a party’s mental or physical condition when that party’s condition has been placed in controversy” … . Nevertheless, even where a defendant’s mental or physical condition is in controversy, discovery will be precluded if the information falls within the physician-patient privilege and the defendant has not waived that privilege … . Where the physician-patient privilege has not been waived, the party asserting the privilege may “avoid revealing the substance of confidential communications made to [his or] her physician, but may not refuse to testify as to relevant medical incidents or facts concerning [himself or] herself” … .

We agree with defendant that he did not waive the physician-patient privilege by disclosing his mental health information in the sentencing phase of the related criminal proceeding. Here, defendant submitted the mitigation report in the criminal proceeding for the court’s consideration in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Thus, this is not a case where a criminal defendant waived any privilege applicable to that defendant’s mental health records by raising a justification or other affirmative defense to be litigated in the criminal proceeding … . Instead, the mitigation report was prepared for and “submitted directly to the court[] in connection with the question of sentence” and, as a result, the mitigation report is “confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1] …). Johnson v Amadorzabala,, 2022 NY Slip Op 07355, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The defendant in this personal injury case did not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting mental health records to the sentencing court in the related criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the mitigation report was for the judge’s eyes only and was confidential.

 

, , , ,

BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the dismissal of plaintiff bus-driver’s causes of action against the estate of driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s county bus, and against Jewish Family Services (JFS) for whom the decedent-driver was volunteering at the time of the accident. JFS and the county collaborated on a program to drive senior citizens to medical appointments. Plaintiff sued JFS under a respondeat superior theory. Pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation benefits were plaintiff’s exclusive remedy because both she and the driver of the car had been deemed county employees in a related action:

A review of the papers supporting [the county’s] cross motion [in the related proceeding] establishes, however, that [the county] focused upon the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Plaintiff thereafter had a full and fair opportunity to respond to that issue, which was discussed at length in the 2019 order. Indeed, Supreme Court … expressly held that the provisions of that statute applied because “both [plaintiff] and Hyde were within the same employ and acting within the scope of employment at the time the alleged injuries occurred, therefore rendering them co-employees which results in workers’ compensation being the exclusive remedy.” Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde were coemployees was “actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided” against plaintiff … .

Plaintiff’s claim against JFS is premised upon the theory that JFS exercised sufficient control over Hyde to render it vicariously liable for her negligence. The issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde are coemployees has been resolved against plaintiff with preclusive effect, however, and plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the negligence of Hyde is therefore workers’ compensation benefits. As noted above, as Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) “deprive[s] the injured employee of a right to maintain an action against a negligent coemployee, [it also] bars a derivative action which necessarily is dependent upon the same claim of negligence for which the exclusive remedy has been provided” … . Thus, as “plaintiff[] did not assert any allegation that [JFS] had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence,” the cross motion of JFS for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it should have been granted … . Bryant v Gulnick, 2022 NY Slip Op 07284, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In a related proceeding it was determined that both plaintiff bus driver and the driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s bus were county employees. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

, , ,

HYDE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, LOST CONTROL AND CROSSED INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING COUNTY BUS; HYDE WAS FATALLY INJURED AND PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the complaint against Bryant, the driver of the county bus involved in the accident, should have been dismissed. The driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger, Hyde, lost control of the car and crossed into the path of the oncoming bus. Hyde was fatally injured and plaintiff had no memory of the accident:

Bryant stated in her affidavit and deposition testimony that a mixture of snow and ice was falling in the leadup to the accident and that, although the road was coated in snow, she was still able to see the center line and fog lines. Bryant added that she was travelling two to five miles below the speed limit and was comfortable driving the bus in the weather conditions. As for the accident itself, Bryant stated that Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane about 1½ car lengths in front of the bus and that she had a second to react before striking it, as well as that she had “nowhere to go” to evade Hyde’s vehicle and that she lightly applied her brakes in an effort to slow down without losing control of the bus. Plaintiff had no recollection of the accident, and nothing else in the record, including the police accident report, contradicted Bryant’s version of events. Bryant accordingly established that she reacted reasonably when Hyde’s vehicle entered her lane of traffic, and plaintiff’s speculation that Bryant might have been able to avoid the collision had she been driving even further below the speed limit or taken other evasive action despite having “at most, a few seconds to react,” did not raise a question of fact … . Northacker v County of Ulster, 2022 NY Slip Op 07285, Third dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The only evidence of the accident was that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger crossed into the path of the oncoming county bus and the bus driver had only a second to react. The county’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the bus driver should have been granted.

 

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE FACT THAT IT WAS SNOWING AND THERE WERE ICY ROAD CONDITIONS DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICABILIITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this chain-reaction traffic accident case, determined there were questions of fact about the weather (snow and ice) and traffic conditions at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in the middle car: Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint pursuant to the emergency doctrine:

Striking a vehicle in the rear is negligence as a matter of law absent a sufficient excuse” … . The excuse proffered by defendants here, and accepted by Supreme Court, was that they were confronted with an emergency in the form of sudden snowfall and icy road conditions such that they could not avoid the respective collisions. “[I]n order for a driver to be entitled to summary judgment based upon the emergency doctrine, he or she must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the emergency situation with which he or she was confronted was not of his or her own making and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” … . “Whether [a] defendant was presented with an emergency is generally a question of fact” … . In addition, “the emergency doctrine is inapplicable [where a] defendant driver was aware of . . . icy road conditions and should have accounted for them properly” … . “[A] driver is expected to maintain enough distance between himself [or herself] and cars ahead of him [or her] so as to avoid collisions with [slowing or] stopped vehicles, taking into account weather and road conditions” … . Williams v Ithaca Dispatch, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07278, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Although it was snowing and there were icy road-conditions at the time of this chain-reaction traffic accident, the emergency doctrine should not have been applied to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this stairway slip and fall case was an out-of-possession landlord who was not responsible for maintenance of the stairway treads:

Article 7(A)(i) of the lease imposed on Cava [the tenant] the obligation to maintain and repair the nonstructural portions of the demised premises … . The testimonial evidence established that Cava, consistent with its obligations under the lease, assumed responsibility over the subject staircase … . Although the lease granted defendants the right to re-enter to make repairs, the stairway condition was not a significant structural or design defect that was contrary to a specific statutory safety provision … . Kamara v 323 Pas Owner LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07296, First Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The tenant, pursuant to the lease, had assumed responsibility for maintenance of the stairway where plaintiff fell. The defendant out-of-possession landlord was entitled to summary judgment.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS WERE TIME-BARRED, THE RELATED WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION, BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEATH, WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, the related wrongful death action, brought within two years of death, was not:

Although the plaintiff denominated the second cause of action as one for “loss of services,” she alleged all the elements necessary to plead a cause of action for wrongful death, including “(1) the death of a human being, (2) the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant by which the decedent’s death was caused, (3) the survival of distributees who suffered pecuniary loss by reason of the death of decedent, and (4) the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent” … . … [T]he wrongful death cause of action was timely. EPTL 5-4.1 provides that an action for wrongful death “must be commenced within two years after the decedent’s death.” Here, the decedent died on November 9, 2013, and this action was commenced on November 9, 2015. Thus, “the cause of action alleging wrongful death was timely commenced within two years of the decedent’s death, since, at the time of [his] death, [the] cause of action sounding in medical malpractice was not time-barred” … .Proano v Gutman, 2022 NY Slip Op 07253, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, but the related wrongful death actions, brought within two years of death, were not.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a non-jury trial awarding plaintiff over $2,000,000, determined plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant Traina, the sole member of defendant limited liability company (LLC), personally liable. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the bar owned and operated by the LLC and was awarded a default judgment:

Generally, a member of a limited liability company cannot personally be held liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the limited liability company, “whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise” (Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on members for the obligations of the limited liability company … . ” … [G]enerally . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation [or LLC] in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the [party seeking to pierce the corporate veil] which resulted in [the party’s] injury” … . * * *

… [A]lthough Traina did not observe all corporate formalities, the evidence established that he ran a real business, with employees, customers, and vendors, and the petitioner presented no evidence that the LLC was undercapitalized or that Traina commingled the assets of the LLC with his own or used corporate funds for personal use … . … w[W]ile the petitioner demonstrated that Traina exercised complete domination and control over the LLC, he failed to show that Traina’s actions, including abandoning certain fixtures and equipment to his landlord, were for the purpose of leaving the LLC judgment proof or to perpetrate a wrong against the petitioner … .  … [P]etitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil … . Matter of DePetris v Traina, 2022 NY Slip Op 07232, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: The criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this personal injury action against a bar owned and operated by a limited liability company were not met. The over $2,000,000 judgment against the sole member was reversed.

 

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