You are here: / Negligence
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (St. Andrews’) motion to vacate the default judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. St. Andrews had not updated its address with the Secretary of State and did not have a reasonable excuse. However a reasonable excuse is not required by CPLR 317:

St. Andrews’s principal demonstrated that he had received a letter notification of plaintiff’s accident before commencement of the action which he forwarded to his insurance broker, but that he never received any further notice until he received the information subpoena. The principal of DP Realty [designated by St. Andrews to receive service of process] also averred that he was unaware of the summons and complaint ever having been received, and therefore it would not have forwarded any papers to St. Andrews. That evidence was sufficient under CPLR 317 to establish St. Andrews’s lack of personal notice of the summons in time to defend. St. Andrews also demonstrated a meritorious defense in that the Yonkers City Code “does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform” the duty to clean snow and ice from the sidewalk, and an abutting landowner is not liable in the absence of such a statute for failure to clear snow, ice and dirt … .

… [P]laintiff demonstrated that St. Andrews never updated its address with the Secretary of State, and thus could not show a reasonable excuse for its default under CPLR 5015(a)(1). However, no showing of a reasonable excuse is required under CPLR 317 … , and it cannot be inferred solely from the failure to update defendant’s address with the Secretary of State that defendant was deliberately avoiding receiving notice … . In light of the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits … , we find that St. Andrews demonstrated entitlement to vacatur under CPLR 317… . Gomez v Karyes Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07187, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: No reasonable excuse for a default need be shown in a motion the vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 317, Here the defendant’s failure to update its address for the service of process with the Secretary of State was not an attempt to avoid service. The motion to vacate the default should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice case. determined the motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should not have been granted. but the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted, explaining the difference:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . …

… “[A] motion to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should be granted ‘[o]nly where the evidence so preponderates in favor of the unsuccessful litigant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . … “‘Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a factual question. In reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division has the power to determine whether a particular factual question was correctly resolved by the trier of facts. If the original fact determination was made by a jury, as in this case, and the Appellate Division concludes that the jury has made erroneous factual findings, the court is required to order a new trial, since it does not have the power to make new findings of fact in a jury case'” … . * * *

As to the weight of the evidence, based on the record, we find that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and must be set aside (see CPLR 4404[a] …). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the complaint, grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial…. . Osorio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07072, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: When an appellate court determines the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence in a jury trial it must order a new trial because an appellate court does not have the authority to make new findings of fact in a jury trial.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant homeowners were not entitled to summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case. Apparently the raised part of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property, but much of that same flag abutted defendants’ property. Because the village code placed responsibility on the homeowners to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition, in order to warrant summary judgment, the defendants were required to demonstrate they maintained the portion of the sidewalk in front of their property in a reasonable safe condition or that the failure to do so was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. Defendants offered no evidence on that issue:

While the homeowners demonstrated that the section of the sidewalk containing the defect on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped did not abut their property, their submissions in support of their motion also included evidence that the sidewalk flag on one side of the defect—which was not level with the adjacent flag, resulting in the height differential on which the plaintiff tripped—extended several feet onto their side of the property line. To meet their prima facie burden, the homeowners were “required to do more than simply demonstrate that the alleged defect was on another landowner’s property” … . They were required to make a prima facie showing that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk abutting their own property in a reasonably safe condition, or that any failure to do so was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Kuritsky v Meshenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 07066, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the village code placed responsibility for maintaining sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition on the abutting property owners. The raised portion of a sidewalk flag over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of defendants’ property. But several feet of that same sidewalk flag extended in front of defendants’ property. To warrant summary the defendants were required to show either that they maintained the portion of the sidewalk which abutted their property in a reasonably safe condition, or that the failure to do so was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall. The defendants presented no evidence on the issue.

 

, ,

STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the claimant’s failure to set forth the correct date of the alleged dental malpractice in the notice of intention to file a claim was a jurisdictional defect, notwithstanding the correct date set forth in the subsequently filed claim: Because the notice of intention was jurisdictionally defective it did not extend the 90-day period for filing a claim rendering the claim filed more than a year and a half later untimely:

The claimant served the defendant with a notice of intention to file a claim dated January 9, 2017, which alleged that the claimant was injured when her mouth and lips were burned during the course of her treatment as a patient at a particular address where the defendant operated a school of dental medicine. The notice of intention to file a claim stated that “[t]he claim arose on or about October 15, 2016, the last date of continuous treatment and prior to said date.”

In the subsequent claim, dated October 16, 2018, the claimant stated that she was injured on October 20, 2016, when hot wax was negligently spilled on her face and mouth while an employee of the defendant was attempting to make a wax mold for dentures. * * *

Section 10(3) of the Court of Claims Act sets forth time limitations for asserting “[a] claim to recover damages . . . for personal injuries caused by . . . negligence.” Such a claim “shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within [90] days after the accrual of such claim” (id.). However, if the claimant serves “a written notice of intention to file a claim” within 90 days after the accrual of the claim, “the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim” … . * * * Since the claimant’s notice of intention to file a claim was substantively deficient (see Court of Claims Act § 11[b]), it did not extend the claimant’s time to file and serve a claim beyond the 90-day statutory period … . Under the circumstances, the claim was untimely (see Court of Claims Act § 10[3] …). “The claimant’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Court of Claims Act deprived the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction” … . Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sacher v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07087, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Including the wrong date for the allegedly negligent act in the notice of intention to file a claim renders the notice jurisdictionally defective pursuant to the Court of Claims Act.

Practice Point: Ordinarily filing a notice of intention to file a claim extends the period for filing a claim from 90 days to two years. However, the extension is not triggered by a jurisdictionally defective notice of claim. The claim here, filed more than a year and a half after the notice of intention, was therefore untimely.

 

, ,

THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “unsafe intersection design” cause of action against the city in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed. The city was not entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence any studies of the intersection had been undertaken or any highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made. The court noted the fact that the city had no notice the intersection was unsafe and no accidents had been reported did not warrant summary judgment on whether the city had created a dangerous condition:

… [W]here the initial traffic design is challenged, the municipality must show that there was a reasonable basis for the traffic plan in the first instance … . As the City defendants failed to establish that the original design of the subject intersection was based on a deliberative decision-making process which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury, the City defendants did not sustain their prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity … .

… [T]he lack of prior similar accidents or notice did not establish the City defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under ordinary negligence principles. Since the City defendants created the alleged dangerous condition with their design of the intersection, “the ‘usual questions of notice of the condition are irrelevant'” … . … [T]he lack of prior similar accidents within the five years preceding the plaintiff’s accident did not establish, by itself, that the intersection was reasonably safe. Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . A lack of prior accidents “is some evidence that a condition is not dangerous or unsafe” … . However, it is only a factor to be considered and does not negate the possibility of negligence … . Petronic v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: In an “unsafe intersection design” case, the municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a study of the intersection had been undertaken and a highway-planning decision concerning the intersection had been made.

Practice Point: Because it was alleged the city created the dangerous intersection, the lack of notice and prior accidents did not warrant summary judgment dismissing the negligent-design cause of action.

 

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 4 1/2 inch riser at the entrance to a shower, over which plaintiff tripped and fell, was open and obvious as a matter of law:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a tiled single-step riser while entering a shower stall in the locker room at the defendant’s fitness club. The single-step riser was approximately 4½ inches high and was tiled in the same color and pattern as the floor tiles which bordered the top and bottom of the step. * * *

“[T]he issue of ‘[w]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances'” … . In addition, “whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question of fact for the jury” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the single-step riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the surrounding circumstances, including the lighting conditions at the time of the accident … . Lore v Fitness Intl., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06922, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here in this slip and fall case, defendant did not demonstrate a 4 1/2 riser at the entrance to a shower was open and obvious as a matter of law.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. The evidence, including video evidence, demonstrated defendant’s bus had a green left-turn arrow when the bus collided with plaintiff’s oncoming vehicle as the bus was turning. The court also found the damages for future pain and suffering excessive:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a “valid line of reasoning” that could lead a rational person to the liability verdict in this case … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law.

However, the jury verdict on the issue of liability was contrary to the weight of the evidence, as “the evidence preponderate[d] so heavily in the [defendants’] favor that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . * * * … [W]e remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new trial on the issue of liability.  Blair v Coleman, 2022 NY Slip Op 06902, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: In this traffic accident case, defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law was properly denied. But the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted. The appellate court ordered a new trial on liability.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; A HOSPITAL WILL NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR SURGERY COMPETENTLY PERFORMED BY HOSPITAL STAFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRIVATE PHYSICIANS WHO DID THE PRIMARY SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the defendant surgeons should not have been dismissed on the ground plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was conclusory. The affidavit raised questions of fact about whether defendant surgeon deviated from the requisite standard of care. The court noted that the plaintiff’s expert did not review the pleadings and all the evidence was irrelevant. The court also noted that the action against the hospital based upon the surgical procedures performed by hospital staff was properly dismissed. A hospital will not be vicariously liable where hospital staff competently carry out the orders of the private physicians who did the primary surgery:

… [T]he plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion did not consist of merely general and conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The plaintiffs’ expert made specific allegations based upon the operative reports and CT scan which were part of the medical records, and addressed specific assertions made [defendants’] expert. …

Although the plaintiffs’ expert did not review the pleadings, and all the evidence, that failure went to the weight, not the admissibility of his opinion . The operative report regarding the hysterectomy was part of the injured plaintiff’s hospital records, was electronically signed by Germain [defendant surgeon], and was relied upon by [defendants’] expert … . Therefore, the plaintiffs’ expert properly relied upon that report in reaching his conclusions. * * *

At the conclusion of the surgery, the physician assisting Germain was replaced by an employee of the hospital. However, by that time, the surgery was over, and the doctors were closing up the injured plaintiff. There is no allegation or evidence that the hospital physician committed malpractice or could have had any influence on the course of the surgery at that juncture.

“Where hospital staff, such as resident physicians and nurses, have participated in the treatment of the patient, the hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries where the hospital employees merely carried out the private attending physician’s orders,” except when the hospital staff follows orders knowing that the doctor’s orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders, the hospital’s employees have committed independent acts of negligence, or the words or conduct of the hospital give rise to the appearance and belief that the physician possesses the authority to act on behalf of the hospital … . Bhuiyan v Germain, 2022 NY Slip Op 06901, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: Here, in this medical malpractice case, the fact that plaintiff’s expert did not review the pleadings and all the evidence was not a legitimate reason for rejecting the expert’s affidavit. The expert relied on relevant evidence and the affidavit was not conclusory.

Practice Point: A hospital will not be vicariously liable for surgery competently done by hospital staff at the direction of the private physicians who did the primary surgery.

 

THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the club’s (Copacabana”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been granted. Because the subsequent accident did not occur on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed:

Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person … . While Copacabana relied on defendant Anslem Trotman’s deposition testimony that he arrived to the establishment after having only one beer, and that he did not recall anyone from Copacabana serving him drinks, Trotman’s testimony was insufficient to rule out the possibility that he was served alcohol by Copacabana waitstaff while he was visibly intoxicated. Trotman had also testified that he was drunk and could not remember large portions of the night, and his testimony was equivocal as to whether Copacabana waitstaff served him drinks or whether he purchased additional alcohol beyond what came with his party package. …

Plaintiff’s common-law negligence was properly dismissed, as the accident that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries occurred off Copacabana’s premises … . The claim for punitive damages was also properly dismissed, as there is no independent cause of action for punitive damages …  and plaintiff failed to establish a basis for such damages. Denenberg v 268 W. 47th Rest., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06866, First Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether plaintiff was served alcohol by defendant club when he was visibly intoxication. The Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been dismissed. Because the accident did not happen on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

 

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end traffic accident case, determined defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff “stopped short” did not raise a question of fact:

The court should have granted plaintiff for summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff established prima facie that defendant was negligent by submitting his affidavit that defendant’s vehicle rear-ended his vehicle as he slowed down or stopped to accommodate another vehicle that was merging in from his right, and defendant failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision …  Defendant claimed only that defendant [plaintiff?] stopped short, which, by itself, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence … . Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiff was not required to establish absence of comparative negligence on his part to be entitled to summary judgment on liability … .

In view of plaintiff’s affidavit establishing his own lack of fault and his seatbelt usage, and the absence of any proof to the contrary, the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and failure to wear a seatbelt, as well as the irrelevant defense of assumption of risk, are also dismissed … . Vasquez v Strickland, 2022 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: In a rear-end traffic accident, defendant’s allegation plaintiff “stopped short” does not raise a question of fact.

 

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