You are here: / Negligence
,

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.

 

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR A SNOW AND ICE CONDITION UNTIL A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE PRECIPITATION HAS STOPPED); THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO REMOVE SNOW HOURS BEFORE THE FALL CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; TO MEET THAT BURDEN AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, SUBMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the property owner’s (Site A’s) motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should have been granted. The evidence demonstrated it was still snowing at the time of plaintiff’s fall and plaintiff did not submit an expert affidavit demonstrating how defendant’s snow removal efforts exacerbated the condition:

Site A made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based on the storm-in-progress doctrine, because the meteorological data, its expert meteorological affidavit, and plaintiff’s deposition testimony annexed to its moving papers establish that there was a storm in progress when the accident occurred … . …

Although the burden shifted to plaintiff to establish that Site A created the alleged condition or made it more hazardous by attempting to remove the precipitation from the driveway about five hours before he fell, plaintiff failed to meet that burden as he submitted no expert affidavit explaining how Site A, by not salting or sanding the area before the accident, could have created or exacerbated the naturally occurring ice condition … . Colon v Site A – Wash. Hgts., 2022 NY Slip Op 03173, First Dept 5-12-22

Practice Point: Here in this ice and snow slip and fall case, the defendant property owner presented prima facie proof that the storm-in-progress doctrine applied because it was snowing hours before plaintiff fell and was still snowing when plaintiff fell. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to show that defendant’s snow removal efforts undertaken hours before the fall exacerbated the dangerous condition. Because plaintiff did not submit an expert affidavit on that issue, plaintiff’s burden of proof was not met.

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the Graves Amendment did not apply to the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, relieving the owner of a leased vehicle of liability:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), “[e]very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner.” However, pursuant to the Graves Amendment, which “preempt[s] conflicting New York law” … , the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner) cannot be held liable by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner) for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) (see 49 USC § 30106[a] …). Keys v PV Holding Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03105, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: If the owner of a leased vehicle is not negligent (i.e., improper maintenance, etc.), the Graves Amendment relieves the owner of liability for a traffic accident involving the leased vehicle. Here the plaintiff did not demonstrate the Graves Amendment didn’t apply. Therefore the burden to prove the amendment did apply never shifted to the defendant vehicle-owner and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED; THERFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendants did not submit proof of when the area was last inspected and therefore did not demonstrate they lacked constructive notice of the condition:

A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it … . To meet its burden on the issue of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer evidence as to when the accident site was last inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate when they last inspected the walkway prior to the incident and they failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that the cinder block was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . Ferrer v 120 Union Ave., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03096, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: For years hundreds of cases were reversed because there was no evidence of when the area of a slip and fall was last inspected by a defendant and therefore defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice and was not entitled to summary judgment. Now there are just a few cases reversed for this reason in a given year. The bar has learned this lesson.

 

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