You are here: / Negligence
,

IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WHERE A ROUTER SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S THUMB, THE FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MANUAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLANTIFF NEVER READ IT; THE GENERALIZED FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, THE DESIGN-DEFECT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE LACK OF AN INTERLOCK DEVICE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court in this products liability case where plaintiff severed his thumb using a router, determined: (1) the failure-to-warn cause of action based upon the product manual should have been dismissed because plaintiff testified he never read it; (2) the generalized failure-to-warn cause of cause properly survived summary judgment; and (3) the design defect cause of action alleging the router should have had an interlock device which would shut it down properly survived summary judgment. Whether plaintiff was familiar with the risk of amputation such that the defendant was relieved of the duty to warn is a question of fact. And whether the lack of an interlock device is a design defect is a question of fact (disagreeing with decisions from the Second Department):

… [T]he record contains evidence that plaintiff had knowledge of power tools other than the router and the general hazards associated with cutting devices. Plaintiff also had used the router on one prior occasion at the premises before the accident. However, it is for a jury, not the court, to determine whether, based on the evidence and testimony presented, plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the specific hazards from the use of the router to relieve defendants of their duty to warn of them. Further, whether the router presented an open and obvious danger is also a jury issue. * * *

The branch of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the design defect claim based on the lack of an interlock was also properly denied. We recognize that the Second Department has held that such a claim is per se unviable in Chavez v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp. (130 AD3d 667 [2d Dept 2015]), Patino v Lockformer Co. (303 AD2d 731 [2d Dept 2003]), and Giunta v Delta Intl. Mach. (300 AD2d 350 [2d Dept 2002]). Chavez (at 669), the most recent of these cases, cited Patino and Giunta for this proposition, and in Giunta (at 351), the Second Department held that a theory of liability that a “table saw should have been designed with an interlock which would have prevented the motor from starting if the blade guard was off. . . . was explicitly rejected as a matter of law in David v Makita U.S.A. (233 AD2d 145 [1st Dept 1996]), and implicitly rejected in Banks v Makita, U.S.A. (226 AD2d 659 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 805 [1996]).”

However, we read neither David nor Banks as supporting Giunta’s conclusion. Vasquez v Ridge Tool Pattern Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03488, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: In this products liability case where plaintiff lost a thumb using a router, there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was familiar enough with the danger of amputation that the defendant should be relieved of liability for the failure to warn. Here the First Department, disagreeing with the Second Department, determined the absence of an interlock device which would shut the router down raised a question of fact on the design-defect cause of action.

 

RARE SLIP AND FALL WON BY THE DEFENDANT AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE BOX WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the presence of a cardboard box over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell—a rare slip and fall case where a lack of constructive notice was successfully demonstrated at the summary judgment stage:

Defendant sustained its initial burden of showing that it lacked notice of the presence of the cardboard box near the walkway of its building before the accident and that it observed a reasonable cleaning routine … .. Plaintiff testified that she did not see the box when she left work at 4:00 p.m. on the day before her fall, and defendant’s caretaker stated that it was not there when he left work at 4:30 p.m. on the same day. The caretaker also testified that he cleaned the area twice a day, first thing in the morning and last thing at night. Thus, the box could have been deposited near the walkway a few minutes before plaintiff’s accident … . Defendant is not required to patrol the area 24 hours a day … , and plaintiff failed to show that the cleaning schedule described by the caretaker was “‘manifestly unreasonable'” … .

Plaintiff’s argument that the caretaker admitted that tenants regularly left garbage near the walkway and that it was a recurring problem is unavailing. The caretaker’s testimony shows that defendant was aware of the general problem, not that it was aware of the specific presence of the cardboard box at issue, and that it addressed the problem by having the caretaker clean the area twice a day … . Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03461, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: In this slip and fall case, the defendant, at the summary judgment stage, presented evidence, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated the box which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall was not in the walkway long enough to raise a question of fact whether defendant was or should have been aware of it.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of his slip and fall. Plaintiff fell near a sink in defendants’ bathroom. Although he did not see the condition which caused him to fall, his pants were wet after the fall:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see the condition that caused him to fall prior to the accident. However, he testified that, after he fell, his pants became wet. “Contrary to the defendants’ contention, this testimony does not establish that the cause of the plaintiff’s fall cannot be identified without engaging in speculation” … . Redendo v Central Ave. Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03411, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not see the condition which caused him to fall near a sink in defendants’ bathroom, but his pants were wet after the fall. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall.

​

,

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141; PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was a passenger in a taxi cab when the cab collided with the Katz-defendants’ vehicle which was making a left turn in front of the cab:

“Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, ‘[t]he operator of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any oncoming vehicle that is within the intersection or so close to it as to constitute an immediate hazard'” … . “A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of her motion, which included the deposition testimony of Gabriel Katz as to the happening of the accident, established, prima facie, that Gabriel Katz was negligent in making a left turn when it was not safe for him to do so in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163, and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the collision … . While there are some discrepancies between the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Gabriel Katz as to the relative position of the vehicles at the time of the impact, even under Gabriel Katz’s account, he was “negligent in attempting to make a left turn when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety” … . In opposition, the Katz defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to their contention, the evidence did not support the possible applicability of the emergency doctrine under the circumstances … . Lindo v Katz, 2022 NY Slip Op 03379, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: A left turn in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1141 is negligence per se.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP (NJT) BUS IN NEW YORK; NJT IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE APPLIES; HOWEVER, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW PLANTIFF CANNOT SUE IN NEW JERSEY BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ARISE THERE; APPLYING THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE AS AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK LAWSUIT WAS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over an extensive two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not require the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJT) in this bus-pedestrian accident case. Plaintiff was struck by the NJT bus in New York. The plaintiff, under New Jersey law, could not sue in New Jersey because the cause of action did not arise in New Jersey. The First Department held that the forum non coveniens criteria provided an appropriate analytical framework:

We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity … .  * * *

… Should we dismiss a personal injury action on the ground of sovereign immunity when the action cannot be commenced in the sovereign’s own courts because the injury arose outside of the sovereign’s borders?

We resolve this issue by analogizing it to the legal framework for the forum non conveniens doctrine. Among the factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss an action under this doctrine, with no single factor controlling, are the burden on New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, the availability of an alternate forum in which the plaintiff may bring suit, the residency of the parties, the forum in which the cause of action arose, and the extent to which the plaintiff’s interests may otherwise be properly served by pursing the claim in New York … . Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03343, First Dept 5-24-22

Practice Point: A bus operated by the New Jersey Transit Corp (NJT) struck plaintiff in New York. NJT is an arm of the state of New Jersey to which the sovereign immunity doctrine applies. But, under New Jersey law, the suit cannot be brought in New Jersey. After analyzing the case using the forum non coveniens criteria, the First Department allowed the New York lawsuit to go forward.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NEGLIGENT-HIRING ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED A DOCTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND OTHER PATIENTS SOUGHT DISCOVERY; THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER ASSAULTED PATIENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PARTY STATEMENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PRIVILEGE; AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE NAMES OF THE DOCTOR’S COWORKERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who, along with other patients, was allegedly sexually assaulted by a doctor, Newman, employed by defendant hospital (Mount Sinai), was entitled to certain discovery. Plaintiff sought discovery of party statements, incident reports, the identities of the other assaulted patients, and the names of the doctor’s coworkers at the time of each assault. Plaintiff was entitled to documents not protected by the quality assurance privilege. The doctor-patient privilege did not extend to the identities of the other assaulted patients. And the names of the doctor’s coworkers were in a statement prepared by the Health and Human Services Department to which plaintiff was entitled:

We reject Mount Sinai’s assertion that privilege excuses it from complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands regarding the identities of the other three patients that defendant Newman assaulted. The doctor-patient privilege provided for by CPLR 4504(a) protects information relevant to a patient’s medical treatment, but the privilege does not cover incidents of abuse not part of a patient’s treatment … . Moreover, while the court stated that disclosure would violate HIPAA, federal regulations provide for disclosure of HIPAA-protected documents subject to a showing that the party seeking disclosure has made a good faith effort to secure a qualified protective order, and plaintiff has done so in each of her motions (45 CFR 164.512[e][ii], [v] …).

… [T]he identities of defendant Newman’s coworkers at the times of each of the assaults are relevant and must be disclosed, as those coworkers may have information concerning his conduct … . The names of the coworkers were contained in a statement of deficiencies prepared by Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and plaintiff is entitled to production of that statement, redacted to remove conclusions of law and opinions of the Department of Health and Human Services … . Newman v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03327, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was allegedly sexually assaulted by a doctor who pled guilty to assaulting other patients. Plaintiff sued the hospital which employed the doctor under a negligent hiring and retention theory. The names of the other assaulted patients were not protected by the physician-patient privilege. Party statements were not protected by the quality assurance privilege. And plaintiff was entitled to the names of the doctor’s coworkers.

 

, ,

THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE STATED THAT THE CONTRACTOR FOR WHOM THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WOULD HOLD THE “OWNER’S AGENT” HARMLESS AND DID NOT MENTION THE PROPERTY OWNER; THE CONTRACT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indemnification clause in the ladder-fall case must be strictly construed. The clause stated that the contractor for whom plaintiff worked, Collins, would hold harmless the “owner’s agent” but did not mention the property owner, LIC. Therefore LIC’s indemnification action against Collins should have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleged common-law negligence, including failure to provide her with a safe ladder, and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, 240(1)-(3), and 241(6). * * *

LIC commenced this third-party action against Collins asserting that “Collins was obligated to provide plaintiff, its employee, with the necessary equipment to enable her to properly and safely perform her cleaning related duties” at the premises, and that plaintiff’s injuries were due to Collins’ failure to perform its duties under the contract and provide her with the proper tools, equipment, supervision, direction, and control. The third-party complaint also asserted that Collins agreed to indemnify LIC from any accidents, injuries, claims, or lawsuits arising out of the cleaning related services Collins provided at the premises. …

The indemnification provision states that Collins shall “hold harmless the OWNER’S AGENT from all claims by Tenants or others whose personnel or property may be damaged by [Collins], its operators, and including but not limited to the use of any of the required equipment or material.” Tishman is designated as the “owner’s agent” in the contract. LIC is neither identified nor included under the indemnification provision and the indemnification provision must be “strictly construed” … . Tavarez v LIC Dev. Owner, L.P., 2022 NY Slip Op 03339, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Indemnification clauses in contracts must be strictly construed. Here the contract said the contractor for whom the injured plaintiff worked would hold harmless the “owner’s agent” and did not mention the owner. Therefore the owner’s action against the contractor for indemnification should have been dismissed.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-attorneys’ motion for summary judgment in this legal malpractice action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendants-attorneys did not advise it of an amendment to the commercial lease. The lease included an option to purchase the property for $11.4 million. The amendment extinguished the option to purchase for $11.4 million upon purchase of the property. The landlord received a bona fide purchase offer and plaintiff exercised its option, but paid $14.5 million:

Defendants’ email attaching a marked-up copy of the relevant lease section does not establish as a matter of law that defendants advised plaintiff as to the meaning of the amendment, and the parties dispute the oral advice that was provided by defendants. … [T]he fact that plaintiff’s agent read the amendment does not establish as a matter of law that defendants were not negligent … . Any evidence that plaintiff’s agent, a sophisticated businessman, knew or should have known that the amendment was substantive despite defendants’ advice that it was “housekeeping” does not disprove defendants’ negligence but is evidence that can be offered in mitigation of damages … .

… The fact that plaintiff sent the signed lease to the landlord without defendants’ knowledge does not as a matter of law refute causation. Alrose Steinway, LLC v Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 5-19-22

Purchase Point: Here the attorneys’ alleged failure to advise the plaintiff of the significance of an amendment to a commercial lease raised a question of fact in this legal malpractice action. The amendment eliminated plaintiff’s option to purchase the property for $11.4 million if the landlord received a bona fide purchase offer. The landlord received such an offer and plaintiff exercised its option to purchase, but paid $14.5 million.

 

, ,

WHEN A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH ISSUES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICES TO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS DEMUTUALIZES, THE CASH-CONSIDERATION PROCEEDS, ABSENT AGREEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYEE, NOT THE EMPLOYER WHICH PAID THE PREMIUMS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that when a mutual insurance company which issued professional liability policies to medical professionals demutualizes, where the employer paid the premiums, the distribution of cash consideration goes to the employee, not the employer:

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC), formerly a mutual insurance company, issued professional liability insurance policies to the eight medical professionals who are litigants in the eight cases before us on these appeals. The premiums for those policies were paid by their employers. In October 2018, MLMIC demutualized and was acquired by National Indemnity Company. Pursuant to its “Plan of Conversion”—approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services—MLMIC sought to distribute $2.502 billion in cash consideration to “Eligible Policyholders.”

The question presented is as follows: when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy for its employee, and the insurance company demutualizes, who is entitled to the proceeds from demutualization: the employer or the employee? We answer that, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the employee, who is the policyholder, is entitled to the proceeds. Columbia Mem. Hosp. v Hinds, 2022 NY Slip Op 03306, CtApp 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here the employer paid the premiums to a mutual insurance company for medical malpractice insurance for its employees (doctors). When the company demutualizes, absent some contractual provision to the contrary, the cash consideration, here $2.5 billion, is distributed to the employees (doctors), not the employer.

 

, , ,

PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THIS “AS IS” SALE OF A BUILDING RELEASED THE SELLER FROM LIABILIITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BUT NOT FOR FRAUD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court properly found that the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA). pursuant to the special facts doctrine, did not release the seller of the building from a claim based on fraud (building was sold “as is”). But the PSA did release the seller from liability for negligence or negligent misrepresentation:

Plaintiff’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against the seller are barred by the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA). In section 6.02 of the PSA, plaintiff agreed that it had not relied on any representations as to the condition of the building, and agreed to purchase the building “as is.” Although Supreme Court correctly found that under the special facts doctrine, section 6.02 does not serve to bar the causes of action based on fraud, the provision does, in fact, bar the causes of action based on negligence (compare TIAA Global Invs., LLC v One Astoria Sq., 127 AD3d 75, 87-88 [1st Dept 2015] [under special facts doctrine, which provides that a contractual disclaimer cannot preclude a fraud claim when the underlying facts are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge, “as is” and “no reliance” provisions in a real estate sales contract did not require dismissal of fraud claim under CPLR 3211]). Similarly, while the release in PSA section 19.15 exempts fraud claims from the scope of the release, plaintiff released the seller for claims relating to any defects in the building “whether the result of negligence or otherwise.” 470 4th Ave. Fee Owner, LLC v Adam Am. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03204 First Dept 5-17-22

Practice Point: Here the building was sold “as is.” A provision in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) released the seller from liability for negligence or negligent misrepresentation. But, pursuant to the special facts doctrine, the PSA did not release the seller from a claim alleging fraud.

 

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