You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied making this dental malpractice action timely; and (2) plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant dentist (Irlin) should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her current treating dentist, who opined that the plaintiff initially sought treatment from Irlin in order to obtain a permanent prosthetic replacement for the missing teeth in her upper jaw. The plaintiff’s dentist further opined that the numerous surgeries that the plaintiff underwent on her upper jaw to repair and replace implants and prostheses were related to Irlin’s initial alleged malpractice in failing to diagnose the bone condition that caused the implants and prostheses to become loose and need replacement. The record otherwise presents questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff timely initiated return visits to complain and seek corrective treatment from Irlin … . …

… [T]he individual defendants’ own submissions, which included the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and numerous signed consent forms written in English, demonstrated that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against Irlin. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she agreed to the installation of dental implants and a permanent prosthetic device in her upper jaw because Irlin verbally promised her that it would “last a lifetime,” that she would “treat [the prosthesis] as if” it was her “own teeth,” and that she would only need follow-up appointments for cleanings once every 6 to 12 months, among other things. The individual defendants’ evidence could support the conclusion that the treatment Irlin rendered did not achieve these allegedly promised results. Chvetsova v Family Smile Dental, 2022 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice, Public Health Law action should not have been granted. The defendant’s experts’ opinions were not supported by the submission of decedent’s medical records:

… [D]efendant’s experts proffered opinions about decedent’s care at the nursing home facility that were not based on facts in the record because defendant failed to submit any of decedent’s medical records, certified or otherwise, to support those opinions. Additionally, those opinions were not based on facts personally known to the experts. Thus, the experts’ affidavits are ” ‘speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation’ ” … . Ritts v Gowanda Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 00578, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant demonstrated it did not create a dangerous condition in the street by a special use. Plaintiff alleged defendant created the dangerous condition by storing heavy materials in the street. Plaintiff alleged a steel beam fell on his foot from a forklift when the forklift struck a defect in the road (Simmons Avenue):

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk or street is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner or lessee of abutting property, unless the landowner or lessee has either affirmatively created the dangerous condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur through a special use, or violated a statute or ordinance expressly imposing liability on the landowner or lessee for a failure to maintain the abutting street” … . Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing, as relevant here, that “[it] neither owned nor made special use of [Simmons Avenue], and that [it] had no connection to the condition” that caused the accident … .

From the dissent:

In our view, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not make special use of Simmons Avenue or affirmatively create the defective condition on Simmons Avenue that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries. Beck v City of Niagara Falls, 2022 NY Slip Op 00563, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE 14-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT DRIVER ACKNOWLEDGED HIS NEGLIGENCE ON THE STAND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the jury verdict finding the 14-year-old defendant driver of an all-terrain vehicle (a Gator) was not negligent was supported by the evidence. The Gator overturned and the 16-year-old passenger was injured. The defendant’s and plaintiff’s descriptions of the accident conflicted. The dissenters argued the defendant acknowledged he was negligent when he testified:

The jury heard … conflicting testimony regarding how defendant was driving at the time of the accident, whether that driving was what led to the Gator tipping over and whether defendant had any reason to believe that his actions posed a risk of harm given the acknowledged stability of the Gator and the fact that he and plaintiff had already performed several donuts without incident. It was for the jury to resolve these factual questions and determine whether defendant “fail[ed] to use that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same circumstances” and engaged in conduct posing a reasonably foreseeable risk to others … . ….

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant testified that he was 14 years old on the day of the accident, that he was operating the John Deere Gator Utility Vehicle (hereinafter Gator) and performing a “donut” at the time of the accident. He described a donut as “the action of turning the wheel of the vehicle while pressing the accelerator in order to get the back wheels to spin out.” He stated that he knew that the Gator was not intended as a recreational vehicle and also testified that, although he was aware of the manufacturer’s safety warnings pertaining to limitations on speed, the use of seat belts and the prohibition of anyone younger than 16 years old driving the vehicle, he disregarded many of those warnings at the time of the accident. Finally, he testified that, although he had always operated the Gator safely in the past, his parents were angry with him after this accident “because [he] was driving [the Gator] in a manner that was inconsistent with [his] entire past.” When asked if this manner was unsafe, defendant simply stated “yes.” Wright v O’Leary, 2022 NY Slip Op 00485, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was not liable to plaintiff, an employee of the contractor defendant hired to replace a staircase. Plaintiff was injured by a protruding screw attached to the new staircase:

… [D]efendant established prima facie that he did not create the allegedly unsafe condition in the unfinished staircase … . Although defendant testified that he tried to repair the old staircase before hiring the contractor, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the contractor removed the old staircase and that plaintiff was injured on a screw attached to the new staircase. The new staircase was built entirely by the contractor.

… [P]laintiff’s testimony that defendant gave the contractor instructions on where to place the staircase and general instructions on how he wanted the construction to proceed does not, without more, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant created the condition. On the contrary, the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor, as opposed to the giving of specific directions on how to do the work, cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal …

There is … no evidence in the record that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition in the unfinished staircase, as the protruding screw was not visible and apparent, nor is there any evidence showing that it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it … . Lara v Kadir, 2022 NY Slip Op 00504, First Dept 1-27-22

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS INJURED WHEN DEFENDANT’S TREADMILL SUDDENLY ACCELERATED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE TREADMILL-ACCELERATION DAYS BEFORE SHE WAS INJURED, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant fitness center’s motion for summary judgment in this treadmill-injury case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the treadmill accelerated suddenly. Plaintiff’s deposition was submitted by the defendant in support of its motion. Plaintiff testified she had complained about the treadmill-acceleration several days prior to her injury. The defendant submitted no evidence concerning when the treadmill was last maintained or inspected:

… [T]he plaintiff testified at her deposition that she complained to a front desk employee of the defendant several days prior to the subject accident that the subject treadmill had spontaneously accelerated while the plaintiff was using it, causing her to quickly get off the machine. No inspection or maintenance records for the subject treadmill were submitted by the defendant in support of its motion. While the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of one of its owners, who testified that the defendant never received any complaints about the subject treadmill spontaneously accelerating at any time prior to the subject accident, this merely raised a question of fact, as well as an issue of credibility, that should be decided by the trier of fact. Mermelstein v Campbell Fitness NC, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY EXCEEDED THE CPLR 3101 (D) DISCLOSURE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The trial judge should not have precluded plaintiff’s expert’s testimony on the ground the scope of the testimony exceeded the CPLR 3101 (d) disclosure:

Because portions of the expert’s testimony purportedly fell outside the notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), the Supreme Court struck all of this expert’s testimony concerning [defendants] Inglis and Shukla. However, even assuming that portions of the expert’s testimony fell outside the CPLR 3101(d) disclosure, it was error to strike all of his testimony concerning Inglis and Shukla. … [T]o the extent that portions of the expert’s testimony fell outside the CPLR 3101(d) disclosure, the relevant subject matter was raised in the bills of particulars and in the expert’s affirmation submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Under these circumstances, the court improvidently struck the expert’s testimony concerning the treatment provided by Inglis and Shukla … .

In addition, the Supreme Court sustained objections to questions of the same expert about whether Mosu departed from the accepted standard of care, for a lack of foundation. The court erred in precluding the expert from testifying as to whether Mosu departed from the accepted standard of care since there was a foundation for the expert’s testimony, including the defendants’ and plaintiff’s trial testimony, and the relevant medical records … . Johnson-Hendy v Mosu, 2022 NY Slip Op 00409, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

,

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PORT AUTHORITY, WHICH IS A BISTATE ENTITY (NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY) CREATED BY COMPACT (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against the Port Authority was time-barred pursuant to New York and New Jersey law, noting that the Notice of Claim Act does not apply:

… [N]either CPLR 217-a nor New York Unconsolidated Laws § 6412-a — both of which were enacted as part of the Uniform Notice of Claim Act … — extends the time in which an action may be commenced against the Port Authority. CPLR 217-a does not apply to the Port Authority because it is not a “political subdivision of the state, . . . instrumentality or agency of the state or a political subdivision, . . . public authority[,] or . . . public benefit corporation entitled to receive a notice of claim as a condition precedent to commencement of an action” within the meaning of the statute; rather, it is a bistate agency … . What is more, New Jersey has not enacted identical legislation … . and bistate entities created by compact are not subject to the unilateral control of any one state … . McKenzie v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 00378, First Dept 1-25-22

 

, ,

SUNY ALBANY NOT PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY IN THIS CASE BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WHO ALLEGED SHE WAS ASSAULTED IN HER DORM ROOM BY A PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE IN THE DORM; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined defendant SUNY Albany’s motion for summary judgment in this inadequate-security case was properly denied. Claimant was assaulted in her dorm room by a person who was not authorized to be in the dormitory. The Court of Claims held the school was not protected by government immunity because building security was a proprietary function (akin to a landlord’s duty), as opposed to a governmental function, and therefore government immunity did not apply. There was evidence the lock on the dormitory door was not adequate and the sexual assault by an intruder was foreseeable:

As the Court of Appeals has recognized, “[a] governmental entity’s conduct may fall along a continuum of responsibility to individuals and society deriving from its governmental and proprietary functions” and “any issue relating to the safety or security of an individual claimant must be carefully scrutinized to determine the point along the continuum that the [governmental entity’s] alleged negligent action falls into, either a proprietary or governmental capacity” (Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 511-512 [1984]). In Miller, a student at a state university was raped by an intruder in the laundry room in her dormitory. The Court of Appeals permitted the claim of negligence — stemming from the defendant’s failure to lock the entrance doors to the dormitory — to go forward in the defendant’s proprietary capacity as a landlord. As in Miller, claimant’s allegations that defendants failed to, among other things, install proper security devices, including locks, clearly implicate defendants’ proprietary function as a landlord, and the Court of Claims therefore correctly rejected defendants’ claim of governmental immunity. …

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . Criminal conduct is foreseeable if it is “reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” … . P.R.B. v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00348, Third Dept 1-20-22

 

, ,

IN THIS ELEVATOR-ACCIDENT CASE, THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO A CONDITIONAL JUDGMENT ON CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THE ELEVATOR-MAINTENANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE PRIMARY ACTION IS DETERMINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner in this elevator accident case was entitled to a conditional judgment (pending determination of the primary action) against the elevator maintenance company (Otis) for contractual indemnification:

“A court may render a conditional judgment on the issue of indemnity pending determination of the primary action in order that the indemnitee may obtain the earliest possible determination as to the extent to which he or she may expect to be reimbursed” … . To obtain conditional relief on a claim for contractual indemnification, “the one seeking indemnity need only establish that it was free from any negligence and [may be] held liable solely by virtue of . . . statutory [or vicarious] liability” … .

… [The building-owner] defendants established their … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they did not have notice of the alleged defect in the subject elevator … , and Otis did not notify the [them] when repairs and/or maintenance was performed on the elevators in the building. Winter v ESRT Empire State Bldg., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00333, Second Dept 1-19-22

 

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