You are here: / Negligence

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SUPPORT POLE FOR THE SIDEWALK TENT FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BY REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO CHOOSE WHICH SIDE OF THE POLE TO WALK ON BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the support pole for the sidewalk shed furnished a condition for the sidewalk slip and fall but was not the proximate cause of the fall:

The record established as a matter of law that the sidewalk shed was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff testified that the support pole for the sidewalk shed was placed in the middle of the sidewalk, dividing the area into two paths that were three feet wide on each side, and that she and her husband elected to walk side-by-side on the path to the left nearest the tree well. Plaintiff stated that her husband “nudged” her to the left, and her foot touched the edge of the tree well, which was not level with the sidewalk, causing her to fall. This testimony established that the placement of the sidewalk shed support pole did not compel plaintiff to step into the tree well to proceed forward, but that its placement merely facilitated the accident or furnished the occasion for it … . Kalnit v 141 E. 88th St., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06552, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: A condition can furnish the occasion for an accident without being the proximate cause of the accident. Here a support pole for a sidewalk tent required plaintiff to choose which side of the pole to walk on but did not cause her slip and fall (she stepped in a tree well).

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW DECEDENT’S DIRECTIVES IN A LIVING WILL OR HEALTHCARE PROXY CAN CONSTITUTE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HEALTHCARE PROXY APPLIED, WHETHER A PROXY WAS REVOKED BY DECEDENT, AND WHETHER THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO DECEDENT WAS APPROVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact concerning which of two contradictory healthcare proxies applied and whether one of the healthcare proxies was revoked by decedent’s conversations:

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants alleging medical malpractice based on the various health proxies and forms. Plaintiff claims that defendants breached their agreement with the decedent by administering antibiotics and IV Hydration from April 15, 2017 onwards that prolonged his life.

Here, there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. It is unclear whether the 1993 healthcare proxy (and the living will), the 2016 healthcare proxy or the 2017 FLST [Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatment Including DNR] governed this dispute and whether the 2016 health care proxy was revoked by decedent through conversations with his agents, pursuant to Public Health Law § 2985(a). Significantly, it is not clear from the record whether the treatment prolonged decedent’s life, as neither side submits an expert affidavit. There is also a question as to whether decedent’s health care agents approved the very treatment for which they now seek to hold defendants liable. Lanzetta v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 06554, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Failure to follow a decedent’s directives in a living will or healthcare proxy can constitute medical malpractice. The directives can be orally revoked.

 

, ,

IF A TRIAL JUDGE DECIDES THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE EXCESSIVE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATES TO THE REDUCED AWARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with the trial judge’s reduction of damages awarded by the jury in this wrongful death case but noted that the judge should have ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to the lower damages amount:

… [W]hile the 21-year-old Bohdan [plaintiff’s decedent], who worked in the family business, lived with his parents, and cared for his younger sibling, was described as a wonderful, loving son who was especially helpful around the home, based on the record, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the jury awards for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss were excessive. … . … [I]t was procedurally improper for the court to reduce the awards of damages for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Vitenko v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: If the trial judge decides the damages awarded by the jury are excessive, the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced amount.

 

,

PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF A TRAFFIC OFFICER IN DIRECTING TRAFFIC CAUSED THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND PLAINTIFF, A PREREQUISITE FOR MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-pedestrian’s complaint against the city in this traffic accident case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the traffic officer’s negligence in directing traffic caused the accident. The First Department found there was no demonstration of a “special relationship” between plaintiff and the city, a prerequisite for municipal liability:

Neither the notice of claim nor the complaint alleges the factual predicate for the special relationship theory between plaintiff and the City, as required to hold the City liable for plaintiff’s injuries based on a traffic officer’s alleged negligence in directing traffic and pedestrians at an intersection where plaintiff was crossing the street … . Plaintiff also did not sufficiently allege that the officer, in directing traffic, took control of “a known and dangerous safety condition” so as to set forth the existence of a special duty … . Plaintiff alleged only that the traffic officer negligently directed a vehicle at the intersection, causing the vehicle to hit her, thereby creating a dangerous condition; however, the dangerous condition must exist prior to the traffic officer’s assumption of any duty … . Plaintiff did not assert that the intersection was inherently dangerous or that the drivers of the cars at the intersection were violating any safety laws before the officer was directing pedestrians. Polito v Escorcia, 2022 NY Slip Op 06447, First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: In this pedestrian accident case, the plaintiff alleged the negligence of the traffic officer in directing traffic caused the accident. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a special relationship between the city and plaintiff, a prerequisite for municipal liability.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE DRIVER AND WAS RESPONDING TO A CALL AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN PERSONAL PICKUP TRUCK, WHICH WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant driver was a volunteer ambulance driver responding to a call at the time of the accident, defendant was driving his own personal pickup truck which did not qualify as an emergency vehicle. Therefore the ordinary negligence, not the “reckless disregard,” standard applied to the defendant:

We agree with plaintiff, however, that he met his initial burden on his cross motion of establishing that defendant was not operating an “authorized emergency vehicle” at the time of the accident and thus that the reckless disregard standard of care does not apply. ” ‘[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) . . . applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b)’ ” … . …

… [A]t the time of the accident, defendant was driving his personally-owned vehicle, which was not affiliated with Eden Emergency … . The vehicle also did not comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (c), which requires authorized emergency vehicles to be equipped with “at least one red light.” Moreover, at the time of the accident, defendant’s vehicle was not being “operated by” Eden Emergency because, while defendant was a volunteer with Eden Emergency, he was not on call at the time of the incident … . Further, defendant did not qualify as an ambulance service. Defendant was not an “individual . . . engaged in providing emergency medical care and the transportation of sick or injured persons” (Public Health Law § 3001 [2]). We also note that defendant was not an emergency medical technician … . Spence v Kitchens, 2022 NY Slip Op 06355, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here defendant was a volunteer ambulance driver who was responding to a call when the traffic accident occurred. Defendant was driving his own pickup truck, was not “on call” for the ambulance service, was not engaged in emergency care and was not a medical technician. Defendant’s truck was not an “authorized emergency vehicle.” Therefore the “reckless disregard” standard of care for emergency vehicles did not apply.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant construction company (Pinto) did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall (a construction sign on the sidewalk) and that it did not create the condition:

Pinto failed to meet its initial burden on its cross motion with respect to constructive notice because its submissions “failed to establish as a matter of law that the [dangerous] condition [was] not visible and apparent or that [it] had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Pinto] or [its] employees to discover and remedy [it]” … . Testimony from Pinto’s superintendent that Pinto had a general policy of taking down and storing its construction signs at the end of each workday was insufficient to establish that Pinto lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition because Pinto failed to establish that it had complied with that general policy prior to the occurrence of the incident in question … .

Pinto also failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition because its own submissions raise triable issues of fact with respect to that issue … . There is no dispute that Pinto’s submissions established that the sign plaintiff tripped over belonged to Pinto. Although the deposition testimony from Pinto’s superintendent established that, at the time of the accident, Pinto had not been present at the work site for about a week, he did not know how the sign ended up on the ground or how long it had been there, and he only speculated that the sign may have been used by another contractor who failed to properly put it away.  Brioso v City of Buffalo, 2022 NY Slip Op 06380, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Defendant construction company did not demonstrate it did not have constructive knowledge of and was not responsible for the presence of the construction sign on the sidewalk over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell.

 

,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT AND THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED THE “CREATION OF THE DEFECT” EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFECT WAS THE RESULT OF DETERIORATION OF THE REPAIRED AREA OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town demonstrated it did not create the sidewalk condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. Rather the sidewalk repair was done by the town 10 years ago and the current deteriorated condition had developed over time:

The Court of Appeals “has recognized only two exceptions to the statutory rule requiring prior written notice, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality” Only the affirmative negligence exception is implicated in this case, and it “‘is limited to work [done] by [a municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition'” … . The defendant was not required to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice rule in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … . Nevertheless, the defendant did eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to that exception. In particular, the defendant submitted an affidavit of its employee, John Carroll, who averred that the asphalt patch would have been “rolled smooth and level to remove any existing tripping hazard between the two existing concrete slabs,” but now, “the tar was eroded from the patch” and “[p]ortions of the asphalt patch . . . appear to be missing.” Based on Carroll’s “observation of the asphalt repair as it exist[ed] in 2019,” he believed that the repair was “[more than] 10 years old” and that its separation from the concrete slabs “would be caused by natural erosion, wear and tear over time, and/or in this case tree roots causing the concrete slabs to uplift, not by the method of its installation.” Parthesius v Town of Huntington, 2022 NY Slip Op 06254, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: A municipality will be responsible for a sidewalk slip and fall only when the town was notified of the defect in writing. There are two exceptions. Plaintiff argued the negligent-repair exception applied here. But that exception only applies to defects immediately resulting from a repair. Here the town demonstrated the repair was not properly 10 years ago and the defect developed over time.

 

,

PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner in this slip and fall case should not have been allowed file a late notice of claim. The fact that county personnel responded to the scene of her injuries did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit. The late notice was served 50 days after the expiration of the 90 time-limit and therefore did not provide notice within a reasonable time. The petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an adequate excuse. And the petitioner did not provide any evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the late notice:

… [T]he fact that members of the Nassau County Police Department and a County ambulance responded to the scene and tended to her injuries, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim against the County … . The petitioner failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that the County had knowledge of the circumstances of the accident from which it could “readily infer” that a “potentially actionable wrong had been committed” by it … .  Moreover, the late notice of claim, served upon the County without leave of court 50 days after the 90-day statutory period had expired, was served too late to provide the County with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the 90-day statutory period expired … .

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s conclusory assertion that her injuries prevented her from making timely service, without any supporting medical documentation or evidence, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … .

… [T]he petitioner failed to come forward with “some evidence or plausible argument” that the County will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits as a result of the delay in commencing this proceeding and the lack of timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Lang v County of Nassau, 2022 NY Slip Op 06245, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case: (1) the fact that county personnel responded to the scene when petitioner slipped and fall did not demonstrate the county had timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit; (2) the late notice served 50 days after the 90-day time-limit did not provide notice within a reasonable time; (3) the petitioner’s injuries did not constitute an excuse; and (4) the petitioner did not present evidence the county would not be prejudiced by the delay.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined 7-Eleven. the lessee of the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff allegedly fell, could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of the sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) imposes a duty upon “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “[A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty” … . Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party” … . Only “where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, [may] the tenant . . . be liable to a third party” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that 7-Eleven had any duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting the property it leased. Brady v 2247 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Under the NYC Administrative Code, the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk is not liable for a slip and fall caused by the condition of the sidewalk if the lessee did not create the condition and did not agree to maintain the sidewalk.

 

, ,

DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined New York has long-arm jurisdiction over third-party defendants Ford and Goodyear in this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on a Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia and three passengers died. The plaintiffs, including the driver, sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear, both out-of-state corporation, seeking indemnification. The issue on appeal was whether Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction:

Ford and Goodyear concede that they conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in New York, thus satisfying the first prong of CPLR 302(a)(1). As to the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1), US Tires demonstrated that Goodyear’s and Ford’s activities in New York have a sufficient connection with the claims herein. * * *

When all the requirements of CPLR 302 are met, the exercise of personal jurisdiction still must comport with constitutional due process requirements … . * * *

Based on the record before us, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Ford and Goodyear comports with due process … . … Ford and Goodyear concede that they had sufficient “minimum contacts” with New York. … [T]he only remaining question is whether Ford and Goodyear have met their burden of presenting “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable” … . We conclude that Ford and Goodyear have failed to meet this burden. Aybar v US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06099, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a comprehensive discussion of general and specific jurisdiction which is worth consulting. In this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires, seeking indemnification from two out-of-state corporations, Ford and Goodyear, the court determined Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on driver’s Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia, causing a serious accident. The driver sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear.

 

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