You are here: / Negligence
,

ALTHOUGH THE INFANT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL; MOTHER, FATHER AND THE DEFENDANTS PROVIDED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FALL WAS CAUSED BY AN IDENTIFIED DEFECT IN THE SIDEWALK, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that fact that the infant plaintiff, who was four at the time of her slip and fall, could not identify the cause of her fall did not require summary judgment in defendant’s favor. The cause of the fall may be established  by circumstantial evidence:

“In a trip-and-fall case, a defendant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her fall” … . However, “‘[t]hat does not mean that a plaintiff must have personal knowledge of the cause of his or her fall'” … . A determination “that a defective or dangerous condition was the proximate cause of an accident can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury” … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, among other things, the affidavit of the mother of the infant plaintiff who averred that she observed the infant plaintiff fall and that the fall was caused by a defective condition of a sidewalk in the park … . The mother also identified the location of the alleged defective sidewalk in a photograph that was included in the submission of both the plaintiffs and the … defendants … . In support of their respective motions, the … defendants had also submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff, who testified, among other things, that her mother had seen her fall, and of her father, who averred that, at the time of the incident, he ran over to his daughter immediately after her fall and that, at that time, her body was partly on the sidewalk at issue. E. F. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01769, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Although the infant plaintiff could not identify the cause of her slip and fall, which is usually a fatal evidentiary problem, mother, father and defendants provided circumstantial evidence which raised a question of fact about an identified sidewalk defect as the cause of the fall.

 

,

SUN GLARE DID NOT CREATE AN EMERGENCY FOR THE BUS DRIVER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the defendant bus driver and bus company did not raise a question of fact on the applicability of the emergency doctrine.. Defendants alleged sun glare prevented the driver from seeing plaintiff pedestrian in the crosswalk:

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Ruff’s foreseeable encounter with sun glare, while driving on a route with which he was familiar, was an emergency not of his own making, which left him with only seconds to react and virtually no opportunity to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . Morales-Rodriguez v MTA Bus Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 01781, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the bus driver alleged sun glare created an emergency which should excuse his striking plaintiff pedestrian. The allegation did not raise a triable question of fact.

 

, ,

THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavits in this medical malpractice action did not address all the allegations of negligence and were otherwise deficient. Therefore defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The Koyfman defendants’ expert failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted against the Koyfman defendants … , failed to address conflicting evidence in the record … , and failed to eliminate issues of fact as to the cause of the decedent’s injuries…. . …

… [Defendant] ORMC’s expert merely summarized the medical records and certain deposition testimony, and opined in a conclusory manner that Solomon did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in rendering treatment to the decedent and did not proximately cause her injuries … .. Moreover, ORMC’s expert failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted against [defendant] Solomon … .Martinez v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01780, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: At the summary judgment stage, medical malpractice actions are determined by the expert affidavits. If a party’s expert does not address all the allegations of negligence, that party’s motion for summary judgment will be denied without the need to even consider the opposing papers.

 

,

DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE LEASE OR ANY STATUTE TO REPAIR THE FLOOR OF A WALK-IN FREEZER IN THE LEASED PREMISES; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DENTS IN THE METAL FLOOR CAUSED HIS LADDER TO FALL OVER; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged dents in a metal freezer floor caused his A-frame ladder to fall over:

“An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries that occur on its premises unless the landlord has retained control over the premises and has a ‘duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct'” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords which were not bound by contract or course of conduct to repair the allegedly dangerous condition. The plaintiff did not allege that dents in the floor of the walk-in freezer violated any statutes, and therefore the defendants were not obligated to disprove that they had a duty imposed by statute to repair the complained-of condition as part of their prima facie burden … .. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants adequately authenticated that the lease agreement submitted in support of their motion was in effect at the time of the accident … . Lopez v Mattone Group Raceway, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the lease did not require the out-of-possession landlord to maintain the leased premises and there was no statute imposing a duty to maintain the premises on the landlord. Therefore the out-of-possession landlord was not liable for dents in the walk-in freezer’s floor (in the leased premises) which allegedly caused plaintiff’s ladder to fall.

 

, , ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE NORMAL JERKS AND JOLTS OF BUS TRAVEL AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENCE ON DEFENDANTS’ PART; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should not have been granted. The jury could have found plaintiff was injured by the normal “jerks and jolts” of bus travel without any negligence on defendants’ part:

… [G]iving due deference to the jury’s credibility findings … , it could have determined, based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence introduced at trial, including the testimony of the bus driver and a surveillance video, that the movement of the bus as it drove over the speed bump was one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” and not attributable to the negligence of the defendant … . Jones v Westchester County, 2022 NY Slip Op 01774, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the testimony of the bus driver and the surveillance video allowed the jury to determine plaintiff bus-passenger’s injuries were caused by normal movements of the bus and not by the driver’s negligence. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict should not have been granted.

 

,

AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined an entry in the plaintiff’s medical records indicating she fell down a few stairs was inadmissible. Plaintiff alleged she fell through a broken step. The entry in the hospital record was not germane to diagnosis or treatment and the source of the entry could not be ascertained:

… Supreme Court should have precluded the admission into evidence of an entry in a medical record from … the Brookdale medical record … that indicated that the plaintiff sustained a “mechanical fall down ‘a few’ stairs.” An entry in a medical record that is not germane to diagnosis or treatment but is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial is admissible as an admission by that party only when there is evidence connecting the party to the entry … .. “[W]here the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … .

Here, the Brookdale medical record was not germane to the plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment, and thus was not admissible on that basis … .. Moreover, there was no showing that the plaintiff was the source of the information in that record and so it was not admissible as an admission by the plaintiff … . Fraser v 147 Rockaway Pkw, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01772, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: An entry in a hospital record which is not germane to treatment or diagnosis is not admissible. An entry in a hospital record which is inconsistent with a plaintiff’s position at trial is admissible as an “admission” only if it is clear plaintiff was the source of the entry. If, as it was here, the source of the entry is unknown, it is inadmissible.

 

,

IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE MATTER, PLAINTIFF INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NYCRR SUCH THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer did not demonstrate it was entitled to summary judgment based upon the insured’s failure to appear for an independent medical examination (IME):

[Plaintiff insurer’s] its motion papers did not demonstrate that it sustained its burden of showing that it complied with New York State no-fault regulations (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[b], [d]) governing the timeframes for scheduling IMEs … .. Specifically, plaintiff did not establish that it timely requested the IMEs under the applicable no-fault regulations, since plaintiff’s motion papers did not establish the dates of the verification forms that it received from the medical provider defendants; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether plaintiff sent the appropriate notices within 15 business days or 30 calendar days of receiving the forms, as required under (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(b) and (d) …  American Tr. Ins. Co. v Alcantara, 2022 NY Slip Op 01871, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An insurer must show compliance with the regulatory timeframes for scheduling an independent medical examination (IME) before it will be entitled to summary judgment based on an insured’s failure to appear at an IME.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to compel plaintiff to supplement his interrogatories in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the escalator he was working on started up without warning severely injured his leg. The fact that plaintiff can not identify the cause of the unexpected start-up did not require supplementing his interrogatories as he can so state “under oath:”

“It is well settled that a products liability cause of action may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and thus, a plaintiff need not identify a specific product defect” … . In the absence of evidence identifying a specific defect “a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to [the] defendants” … . If a “plaintiff is unable to prove both elements, ‘a jury may not infer that the harm was caused by a defective product unless [the] plaintiff offers competent evidence identifying a specific flaw'” …

In his interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified several alleged design defects, including the design of the pit, that contributed to his injury. However, he did not identify a cause for the unexpected start up of the escalator. … Presently, plaintiff asserts that he cannot pinpoint the defective component that allowed the escalator’s machinery to begin moving without warning. In an instance where plaintiff “presently lacks the knowledge” to specifically identify the nature of the defect, plaintiff can testify to that “under oath” … . … [I]f he acquires the pertinent information he would be under an obligation to promptly supplement his answers to the interrogatories at issue … . Berkovich v Judlau Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01733, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Products liability actions can be proven by circumstantial evidence. If a plaintiff does not know the cause of a product malfunction (here, an escalator which allegedly started running unexpectedly) at the discovery stage, the plaintiff can testify to that fact under oath.

 

, ,

IN THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER’S SPECIFIC CONDUCT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINARY RULES OF THE ROAD PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ORDINARY RULES OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MUNICIPALITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant municipality did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard applied or that the police officer was not negligent in this police-car traffic accident case:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only 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)” … . Even where there is no dispute that the driver was involved in an emergency operation of an authorized vehicle, where the injury-causing conduct did not fall within any of the categories of privileged conduct set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the plaintiff’s claim is governed by principles of ordinary negligence … .

Here, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [officer] Giandurco engaged in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) and whether the reckless disregard standard of care was therefore applicable … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that under principles of ordinary negligence, Giandurco was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Cooney v Port Chester Police Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 01440, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Even if a police car is engaged in an emergency operation at the time of a traffic accident, the police officer’s conduct is not automatically judged under the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104. The officer’s specific conduct must fall within one of the the categories of privileged conduct in the statute. Otherwise the ordinary rules of negligence apply. At the summary-judgment stage, a municipality must demonstrate either that the specific conduct was exempt from the ordinary rules of negligence, or that the specific conduct was not culpable under the ordinary rules of negligent. Here the municipality did not demonstrate either one.

 

, ,

PLANTIFF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER IN 2014 IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF LAVERN’S LAW (CPLR 214-A) IN 2018, WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER BY VIRTUE OF ITS RETROACTIVE-APPLICATION AND REVIVAL PROVISIONS, THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s med mal action alleging failure to diagnose lung cancer based upon a CT scan in 2014 was time barred pursuant to the retroactive-application and revival limitations in CPRL 214-a, enacted on January 31, 2018 (called Lavern’s Law):

[Lavern’s Law] “appl[ies] to acts, omissions, or failures occurring within 2 years and 6 months prior to the effective date of this act, and not before” … . Thus, by its terms, the discovery toll in Lavern’s Law’s applies retroactively to causes of action that were not time-barred as of Lavern’s Law’s effective date, i.e., causes of action accruing on or after July 31, 2015. Plaintiff’s causes of action, which accrued on May 16, 2014, predate the earliest date to which Lavern’s Law’s retroactive discovery toll applies.

Lavern’s Law also provides for the revival of certain time-barred medical malpractice causes of action. Where a claim based on the negligent failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor occurred and, “within ten months prior to the effective date of the act . . . became time-barred under any applicable limitations period then in effect, such action or claim may be commenced within six months of the effective date of the act . . . .” … . Therefore, a failure to diagnose cancer or malignant tumor cause of action that became time-barred between March 31, 2017 and January 31, 2018 may be revived if it is commenced no later than July 31, 2018 … . Because plaintiff’s claims became time-barred on November 16, 2016, the limited revival provision of the new law (for certain claims that became time-barred after March 31, 2017) does not avail her … .Ford v Lee, 2022 NY Slip Op 01414, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: Lavern’s Law (CPLR 214-a, enacted in 2018) extended the statute of limitations for failure to diagnose cancer by virtue of its retroactive-application and revival provisions, neither of which applied to plaintiff here who alleged failure to diagnose in 2014.

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