You are here: / Negligence
,

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE HUNTING TURKEY WHEN DEFENDANT SHOT PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this hunting accident case should have been granted. Defendant, like the plaintiff, was hunting turkey when he shot plaintiff and his friend. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to attempted assault:

We agree with plaintiffs that they established as a matter of law that defendant was negligent by failing to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person “of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the known dangers and risks reasonably to be foreseen” … , and that defendant failed to raise an issue of fact in response. We also agree with plaintiffs that triable issues of fact regarding plaintiff’s comparative negligence do not preclude an award of summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of defendant’s negligence … . Pachan v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 02684, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: Comparative negligence is no longer a bar to summary judgment on liability. Comparative negligence is relevant only to damages.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED DEFENDANT FAILED TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN AND FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic-accident case should have been granted:

Plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment by averring that, at the time of the accident, their vehicle was traveling westbound through an intersection at 91st Avenue in Queens, when defendants’ vehicle failed to stop at a designated stop sign and struck the middle of the driver’s side of plaintiffs’ vehicle … . A presumption of negligence arises from the failure of a driver at a stop sign to yield the right of way to the vehicle on the highway in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 … . …

Defendants’ claim that defendant Bennett stopped at the stop sign, and checked for oncoming traffic but did not see plaintiffs’ vehicle until it suddenly appeared in front of her as she proceeded into the intersection, fails to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her failure to yield the right of way to plaintiffs’ vehicle, but instead indicates that she was negligent in failing to see what was there to be seen … . Samnath v Lifespire Servs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02643, First Dept 4-21-22​

Practice Point: Failure to stop at a stop sign raises a presumption of negligence in an intersection traffic-accident case. Proceeding into the intersection and striking a car which has the right-of-way constituted a negligent failure to see what should have been seen.

 

,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S BUS, THE AUTHORITY GAINED TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM WHEN IT INVESTIGATED THE ACCIDENT AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim in this traffic accident case should have been granted. It was alleged defendant NYC Transit Authority’s bus collided with a NYC sanitation truck which then collided with petitioner’s car. The Transit Authority investigated the accident and therefore had knowledge of the essential facts of the claim. Because the defendant had timely actual knowledge of the potential claim and did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay, petitioner did not need to present a reasonable excuse for the late notice:

… [A]s the Authority acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner met his initial burden of showing that the Authority would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In response to the petitioner’s initial showing, the Authority failed to come forward with particularized evidence demonstrating that the late notice of claim substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … . Since the Authority had actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and no substantial prejudice to the Authority was demonstrated, the petitioner’s failure to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim did not serve as a bar to granting leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Matter of Manbodh v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02544, Second Dept 4-20-22

​Practice Point: Here the defendant NYC Transit Authority investigated the traffic accident involving petitioner’s car and therefore had timely notice of the essential facts of the potential lawsuit. In that situation, in the absence of prejudice to the defendant caused by petitioner’s failure to timely file a notice of claim (none here), petitioner need not provide a reasonable excuse and leave to file a late notice should be granted.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS FILED TWO DAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR-NINETY-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED FOR THREE DAYS BETWEEN THE FILING AND THE DENIAL OF THE FIRST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE MUNICIPALITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim was timely and should have been granted. Although the second order to show cause was submitted two days beyond the one year-and-90-day deadline for suing a municipality. the statute of limitations was tolled for three days between the filing of the first order to show cause and the denial of that first motion:

Since the time to serve a notice of claim upon a public corporation cannot be extended beyond the time limited for commencement of an action against that party … , the court lacks authority to grant a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued, unless the statute of limitations has been tolled … . “CPLR 204(a) tolls the statute of limitations while a motion to serve a late notice of claim is pending” … . Where “a court declines to sign an initial order to show cause for leave to serve a late notice of claim on procedural grounds, but a subsequent application for the same relief is granted, the period of time in which the earlier application [was] pending [is also] excluded from the limitations period” … . …

… [T]he medical records provided the defendants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s claim. The records evinced that a stroke code was called shortly after the plaintiff’s presentation to the hospital, that, based on an assessment of her condition, it was decided that a tissue plasminogen activator was not needed, and that it was later determined that the plaintiff had suffered a stroke but that it was too late to administer that drug.

The plaintiff further made an initial showing that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving the notice of claim, and the defendants failed to rebut the showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … .

Finally, where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim … . Ahmed v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02521, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: The one-year-ninety-day statute of limitations for suing a municipality is tolled for the time between submitting an order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice of claim and the judge’s refusal to sign the order to show cause. Here, although the second order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice was submitted two days after the one-year-ninety-day statute had run, it was timely because of the three-day toll between the filing and denial of first order to show cause. Here the medical records sufficiently notified the municipality of the essential facts of the claim, the municipality did not demonstrate prejudice and there was no need for a reasonable excuse because there was actual knowledge and no prejudice.

 

,

THE DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY AN “AMENDED” BILL OF PARTICULARS BECAUSE IT ADDED NEW INJURIES AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the document labeled a “supplemental” bill of particulars was actually a post-note-of-issue “amended” bill of particulars which should not have been served without leave of the court:

… [T]he document that they denominated a “supplemental bill of particulars” … , was, in reality, an amended bill of particulars, as they sought to add new injuries (see CPLR 3043[b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was to strike the amended bill of particulars … , denominated as a supplemental bill of particulars, which was served without leave of court and after the note of issue had been filed …  . Naftaliyev v GGP Staten Is. Mall, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02556, Second Dept 4-20-22

Practice Point: A “supplemental” bill of particulars which adds new injuries after the note of issue is filed is actually an “amended” bill of particulars which can only be served with leave of the court.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an inmate at the Orange County Correctional Facility (OCCF), stated a cause of action against the county, as well as the county sheriff. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to contaminated shower water at the jail. The cause of action against the county was not based on a vicarious liability theory (the county is not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the sheriff’s office). Rather plaintiff stated a cause of action alleging the county was negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the water at the jail. That cause of action is distinct from the sheriff’s duty to keep inmates safe. The issue was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

… [T]he complaint did not solely seek to hold the County vicariously liable for the actions and omissions of the sheriff and his deputies. The complaint alleged that the County had a duty to maintain the OCCF, including its water supply, in a safe and proper manner, and that the County’s breach of that duty caused the plaintiff to sustain personal injuries. The County’s duty to provide and maintain the jail building is distinguishable from the sheriff’s duty to receive and safely keep inmates in the jail over which the sheriff has custody … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s argument that the County is liable for its own negligence, as opposed to being vicariously liable for the negligence of the sheriff or his deputies, is not improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Aviles v County of Orange, 2022 NY Slip Op 02384, Second Dept 4-13-22​

Practice Point: The county is not liable for the acts or omissions of the county sheriff under a vicarious liability theory. However, here the allegation that the shower water at the jail was contaminated stated a cause of action against the county for its own negligence. Therefore the action against the county should not have been dismissed.

 

,

IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (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. Plaintiff alleged a composite material used at the top of a staircase was inappropriate for that purpose because the surface became slippery when wet from rain. The Second Department found that the defendants did not demonstrate they did not have constructive knowledge of the condition, mainly because the evidence relied upon was inadmissible hearsay. But the Second Department also noted the plaintiff must show more than the creation of a dangerous condition to hold the defendants liable. It must also be shown the defendants knew or should have known of the danger:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants may not be held liable merely because they created the allegedly dangerous condition by directing the installation of the composite decking material on the landing. “[A]bsent a statute imposing strict liability, a defendant may not be held liable for creating a dangerous or defective condition upon property unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge of the danger created” … . San Antonio v 340 Ridge Tenants Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 02298, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: It may be an obvious point, but in order to hold a property owner liable for creating a dangerous condition, the plaintiff must not only show that the defendant created the condition, but also that the defendant was aware of the danger. In this case the defendant installed a composite flooring at the top of a stairwell which allegedly became slippery when wet. Just proving the defendant installed the floor and that the floor became slippery when wet would not be enough.

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF THE PETITIONERS’ CHILD’S INJURY AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED DOES NOT MEAN THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners’ application to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc should not have been granted. Apparently petitioners’ child tripped and fell on a stairwell at at her school. The fact that the school was aware of the child’s injury at the time does not mean the school was aware of a potential lawsuit. The year-long delay was not adequately explained; infancy is not enough. And the petitioners did not show the school was not prejudiced by the delay:

The appellant’s “knowledge of the accident and the injury, without more, does not constitute actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, at least where the incident and the injury do not necessarily occur only as the result of fault for which it may be liable” … . The petitioner mother stated in an affidavit submitted in support of the application that the school nurse called her on the day of the accident, advising her that her daughter fell on the stairs and injured her right foot. This statement, however, did not provide the appellant with actual knowledge of the facts underlying the petitioners’ claim of negligent supervision … .. Similarly, although the petitioner mother stated in her affidavit that she spoke to an employee of the appellant about the accident approximately two months after it occurred, the mother’s affidavit indicates that the employee had no information or details to share. Moreover, letters sent by the petitioners’ attorneys to the appellant did not advise it of the essential facts underlying the negligent supervision claim. J. G. v Academy Charter Elementary Sch., 2022 NY Slip Op 02251, Second Dept 4-6-22

​Practice Point: An application to serve a late notice of claim against a school may be granted if the school had timely knowledge of the claim. But that doesn’t mean timely knowledge of the injury or the incident. It means timely knowledge of the potential lawsuit.

 

,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant registered nurse (Varas), defendant physician’s assistant (Rogan), and defendant doctor who cosigned the physician assistant’s chart (Shaukat). Plaintiff alleged she was told the lump in her breast was a cyst and was given no follow-up instructions. Defendants allege plaintiff was given the appropriate follow-up instructions (to rule out cancer). Several months later plaintiff was diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer:

Defendants Varas and Rogan made a prima facie showing that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care in providing plaintiff with verbal or written discharge instructions … . There are disputed issues of fact, however, that preclude summary judgment, including what, if anything at all, plaintiff was told upon discharge.

Dr. Shaukat established prima facie that she did not depart from the applicable standard of care through her expert physician’s opinion that cosigning a physician assistant’s chart “is a customary administrative function in major accredited hospitals,” and that she acted within that standard of care by cosigning plaintiff’s chart. In opposition, however, plaintiff raised an issue of fact through her expert physician’s opinions that “this function is not merely administrative”; that, in accordance with American Medical Association policy, “physician[s] must review the [physician assistants’] work to ensure conformity with the standard of care, not to simply rubberstamp medical records for ‘administrative’ purposes only”; and that Dr. Shaukat failed to conform to this standard of care by not recognizing alleged deficiencies in plaintiff’s chart and by not instructing Rogan to call plaintiff to tell her that she required imaging promptly in order to rule out a more serious condition, such as breast cancer … . Almonte v Shaukat, 2022 NY Slip Op 02221, First Dept 4-5-22

​Practice Point: In this medical malpractice case, whether a registered nurse and a physician’s assistant gave plaintiff adequate discharge instructions after discovery of a lump in plaintiff’s breast raised a question of fact. In addition, whether the doctor who cosigned the physician assistant’s chart should have reviewed the chart raised a question of fact.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to the records of the driver’s guilty plea to an unclassified misdemeanor (under the NYC Administrative Code), which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right of way: The unclassified misdemeanor is not covered by the sealing statute, Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.55 which seals records of Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions:

… [Defendant driver] was arrested, charged, and subsequently pled guilty to Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-190(b), an unclassified misdemeanor, and to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), a traffic violation, for failing to yield to plaintiff’s decedent and causing him injury. Plaintiff … now seeks the records pertaining to [the driver’s] unclassified misdemeanor. The City defendants argue that these records are not discoverable because they overlap with [the driver’s] traffic infraction records, which are sealed pursuant to CPL 160.55.

Under CPL 160.55, all records and papers relating to the arrest or prosecution of an individual convicted of a traffic infraction or violation, following a criminal action or proceeding, shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency … . Plaintiff is entitled to [the driver’s] records pertaining to his unclassified misdemeanor, as the records are not subject to CPL 160.55, and it does not appear that they were sealed … . To the extent these records contain references or information related solely to [the driver’s] sealed traffic violation case, the City must redact or remove it from its production. Lu-Wong v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02226, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: Although the records of traffic infractions are sealed under CPL 160.55, the records of a violation of the NYC Administrative Code, which criminalizes striking a pedestrian who has the right-of-way, are not subject to that sealing statute. Therefore the plaintiff in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case was entitled to those records.

 

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