You are here: / Negligence
, , , , ,

CLAIMANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM CONCERNING INJURIES INCCURRED WHEN WORKING FOR THE CITY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO PRE-ACTION DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH WHEN THE CITY GAINED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery to support his allegation that the city had timely notice of his accident which would warrant leave to file a late notice of claim:

In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, “the court must consider, inter alia, whether the claimant has shown a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the claim within 90 days of its accrual, and whether the delay would cause substantial prejudice to the municipality” … . ” ‘While the presence or absence of any single factor is not determinative, one factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the [municipality] received actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim in a timely manner’ ” … .

… In support of his application, claimant sought, inter alia, any incident reports concerning the accident and any correspondence between respondents concerning the accident. Claimant alleged that he told his employer about the incident five days after it occurred and believed that his employer notified the City of the accident at that time.

… Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that part of his application seeking pre-action discovery (see CPLR 3102 [c]). Under the circumstances of this case, claimant demonstrated that pre-suit discovery is needed in support of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim for the purpose of establishing when the City had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Wisnowski v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03886, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: When applying for leave to file a late notice of claim, demonstrating the municipality had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim within 90 days of the accident is crucial. Here the claimant alleged his employer told the city about the accident five days after it occurred. Claimant was entitled to pre-action discovery on that issue.​

 

, ,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this rear-end collision case, determined plaintiff’s motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict finding defendant rear-driver negligent should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped when her car was struck from behind. Defendant had struck the car directly behind plaintiff. Although there was evidence plaintiff stopped suddenly (in stop and go traffic), defendant did not offer proof of a nonnegligent explanation for the accident:

We … agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying that part of her posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of defendant’s negligence (see generally CPLR 4404 [a]). A party is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict where there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . As relevant here, “[t]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility . . . , and . . . a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, [nonnegligent] explanation for the accident” … .

Here, the evidence at trial established that, at the time of the collision, plaintiff and defendant were driving in “stop-and-go” traffic during rush hour on a “wet, [d]rizzly” morning. Plaintiff testified that, at the time of the collision, she had come to a stop because the vehicle in front of her had stopped. Defendant testified that the collision occurred when the vehicle in front of her suddenly stopped; she thought the middle vehicle hit plaintiff’s vehicle first. Defendant tried to turn her vehicle to avoid the collision, but was unsuccessful and collided with the middle vehicle. The driver of the middle vehicle in the chain testified that plaintiff’s vehicle stopped suddenly. He denied initially colliding with plaintiff’s vehicle; it was only after he was hit by defendant that his vehicle collided with plaintiff’s vehicle.

In short, the undisputed evidence at trial established that defendant was the rear-most driver involved in the chain-reaction collisions and, therefore, is presumed negligent absent the proffering of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. We conclude that there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences establishing such a nonnegligent explanation based on the trial record here. Specifically, under the circumstances of this case, the ” ‘[e]vidence that plaintiff’s lead vehicle was forced to stop suddenly in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” did not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the collision sufficient to support the jury’s verdict inasmuch as ” ‘it can easily be anticipated that cars up ahead will make frequent stops in [stop-and-go] traffic’ ” Blatner v Swearengen, 2025 NY Slip Op 03880, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this rear-end collision case made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which preserved the issue of defendant’s negligence for appeal. The appellate court held defendant was negligent as a matter of law. The matter was remitted for a trial to determine proximate cause (there was a car between defendant’s and plaintiff’s cars) and, if necessary, damages.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHICH WAS BEING CHASED BY POLICE AND WHICH FAILED TO OBEY A STOP SIGN; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Plaintiff was a passenger in a Honda which was being chased by police. Defendant, whose car was struck by the Honda when the driver of the Honda failed to obey a stop sign, could justifiably assume the driver of the Honda would obey the stop sign. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether defendant breached the duty to see what should be seen:

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that he was free of comparative fault. … [Defendant testified] the collision occurred “instantly” after he first saw the car. * * * … [P]laintiff testified that he “blacked out” in the accident and did not know how it was caused. He was not even sure that the accident occurred at an intersection. All he could remember was the Honda proceeding straight with the police behind them and that he was “a little shaken up because [he had] never been in a high speed [chase].” That was “all [he could] remember, and [then] it was just boom.” Another occupant of the Honda testified that, as the Honda approached the intersection, “[i]t tried to stop, but . . . [they] were going a little too fast” and slid into the intersection. Defendant therefore established that the Honda never stopped at the stop sign before proceeding into the intersection and colliding with defendant’s vehicle. Inasmuch as the evidence submitted by defendant established that he had, at most, “only seconds to react” to the Honda that failed to yield the right-of-way, he established as a matter of law that he was not comparatively negligent … . Brown v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03902, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle which was being chased by police and which did not obey a stop sign. The complaint against defendant, brought by a passenger in the vehicle which ran the stop sign, should have been dismissed. A two-justice dissent argued there was a question of fact whether defendant breached the duty of a driver to see what could be seen.

 

, , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act suit, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the bill of particulars to add deposition testimony which included witness statements made to plaintiff’s attorneys concerning the defendant teacher:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend or supplement a pleading is to be ‘freely given'” … . “‘In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . “The burden of proof in establishing prejudice or surprise, or that the proposed amendment lacks merit, falls to the party opposing the motion for leave to amend” … . “[T]he decision of whether to grant or deny leave to amend is subject to the discretion of the trial court” … .

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars to include the proposed witness’s statements to [plaintiff’s attorneys]. The proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . In this case, having failed to oppose the motion, the District defendants failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating any prejudice or surprise … . Fitzpatrick v Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03794, Second Dept 6-25-25

Practice Point: Amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed. Here deposition testimony about vague and contradictory statements made to plaintiff’s counsel by witnesses concerning defendant teacher’s alleged interaction with students can properly be added to the bill of particulars, criteria explained.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE; THE AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims and remitting the matter for a new determination of damages for past pain and suffering. The Court of Claims interpreted the ad damnum clause which read “!0.000.000” to mean $10,000 and awarded that amount. The Second Department noted that the amount of damages should be based on the evidence, not on the ad damnum clause:​

… [A]lthough the Court of Claims found that the claimant’s evidence could support a “substantial recovery for past and future pain and suffering,” it limited the award of damages to $10,000 based on its interpretation of the ad damnum clause. The court should have granted “any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded” (CPLR 3017[a] …). Although the trier of fact’s “determination is entitled to great deference, it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” … . An award of $10,000 deviates materially from awards for similar injuries … . Consequently, the court should have awarded an amount for past pain and suffering that was supported by the evidence submitted by the claimant … . Bonneau v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03699, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: The damages awarded for past pain and suffering should be based on the evidence. The award is not limited to the amount in the ad damnum clause of the claim.​

 

,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did not demonstrate the defect which cause plaintiff’s fall was trivial as a matter of law. Plaintiff tripped over the raised edge of a cellar door in a sidewalk:

Defendant Teng Dragon, as the party seeking dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial, “must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . While it is true that “there is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” … , producing measurements of the defect together with evidence of the surrounding circumstances is required for a prima facie showing that the defect was trivial as a matter of law … . Photographs produced by the plaintiff appear to show a non-trivial defect in the raised cellar door, and the testimony of defendant Mazal Ubracha 101 LLC’s principal indicates a surface differential between the sidewalk and cellar door of approximately one inch. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that summary judgment should not be granted in a case in which “the dimensions of the alleged defect are unknown and the photographs and descriptions inconclusive” … . Teng Dragon has not provided the actual measurements of the defect here, and thus, making every favorable inference in favor of the nonmovant plaintiff, has failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . Weatherspoon v Mazal Ubracha 101 LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03662, First Dept 6-17-25

Practice Point: Here the defendant did not submit actual measurements of the defect over which plaintiff slipped and fell. Despite photographs of the defect and testimony it was one-inch in height, defendant did not prove the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

 

,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not owe a duty of care to the cab driver injured (assaulted) by a patient (Barrio) who was just released, despite the fact that the cab fare was paid by the hospital:

… [T]he defendant Francis Barrios was taken by ambulance to the emergency department of the defendant John T. Mather Memorial Hospital (hereinafter the hospital). Barrios, who had a history of schizophrenia, complained of anxiety, tremors, and blurry vision. The hospital records indicated that Barrios did not have a history of threatening or attempting to hurt others, or of actually hurting others, and that Barrios did not display any signs of violent behavior. After consultation with the psychiatrist on call, it was determined that Barrios should be discharged and should seek outpatient treatment. * * *

“The elements of a cause of action alleging common-law negligence are a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and a showing that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” … . “Without a duty running directly to the injured person, there can be no liability” … . “Generally, a defendant has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others” … . “A duty may arise, however, where there is a relationship either between defendant and a third-person tortfeasor that encompasses defendant’s actual control of the third person’s actions, or between defendant and plaintiff that requires defendant to protect plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the hospital owed the injured plaintiff a duty. There is no evidence that the hospital had sufficient authority and ability to control Barrios’s actions after he was discharged and left the hospital … . The hospital’s decision to pay for a taxi service for Barrios after his discharge did not make the hospital the injured plaintiff’s employer, make the hospital an agent for Barrios, or otherwise create a special duty … . Further, absent evidence in the record that the hospital knew or should have known that Barrios posed a threat to the injured plaintiff, she was a member of the general public and not of a class of people to whom the hospital owed a duty … . Melio v John T. Mather Mem. Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03562, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a discharged patient with schizophrenia assaulted the cab driver paid by the hospital to take the patent home. The hospital did not owe a duty of care to the cab driver.

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, who are the parents of plaintiffs’ decedent and the administrators of decedent’s estate, are not bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The decedent rented an electric moped from defendant Ravel by downloading an app with an arbitration clause. Decedent was killed when he was thrown from the moped and struck by a car. All agreed that the negligence causes of action were subject to the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs successfully argued the wrongful death action is distinct from the negligence actions and is not subject to the arbitration clause. The winning argument was first raised on appeal. The court heard the appeal because it “present[ed] a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” …:

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs, individually, did not enter into an agreement with Revel to arbitrate. However, the plaintiffs are the administrators of the decedent’s estate, and the causes of action arise from the same incident that caused the decedent’s death. The issue, therefore, turns on the nature of wrongful death causes of action and whether they are derivative of negligence causes of action or independent of negligence causes of action. * * *

The law of this State is clear that a wrongful death cause of action is a separate and distinct cause of action to redress the injuries suffered by a decedent’s distributees as a result of the decedent’s death. “‘A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death'” … . This is true even where no cause of action alleging negligence exists. * * * … [T]his Court [has] determined that a cause of action alleging wrongful death was not derivative of a negligence cause of action, but [is] an independent cause of action vested in the distributees. “… [T]he surviving personal injury action and the wrongful death cause of action … are different in many respects. The two causes of action exist in order to protect the rights of different classes of persons, and the measure of damages is entirely different” … . “Wrongful death actions are brought not to compensate the decedent or his [or her] estate for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury, but rather to recover, on behalf of decedent’s distributees, the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life” … . Further, the different causes of action accrue at different times. A negligence cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, while a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue until the decedent’s death, which can occur after the injury is sustained … . Marinos v Brahaj, 2025 NY Slip Op 03561, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Negligence and wrongful death causes of action are distinct and address different injuries. Here an arbitration clause in a moped rental contract executed to by plaintiffs’ decedent was deemed to apply to the negligence causes of action stemming from the moped accident, but not to the related wrongful death cause of action.​

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an example of when an issue raised for the first time on appeal will be considered by the appellate court.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE HE SIGNED WAS INVALID DUE TO MUTUAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF LUMBAR DISC INJURIES AND LEFT HIP DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS “NOT FAIRLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact the validity of the release he signed in this traffic accident case:

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that there was a mutual mistake with respect to the extent of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained must establish that, at the time the release was executed, “the parties were under ‘[a] mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of [a] presently existing injury’ ” … . “[I]n resolving claims of mutual mistake as to injury at the time of release, there has been delineated a sharp distinction between injuries unknown to the parties and mistake as to the consequence of a known injury” … . “A mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release” … , whereas “[i]f the injury is known, and the mistake . . . is merely as to the consequence, future course, or sequelae of [the] known injury, then the release will stand” … . “Even where a releasor has knowledge of the causative trauma, . . . there must be actual knowledge of the injury. Knowledge of injury to an area of the body cannot cover injury of a different type and gravity” … . Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of mutual mistake inasmuch as, despite the fact that at the time the release was signed plaintiff had pain in the cervical spine and left hip and a diagnosis of a cervical strain, plaintiff alleged that neither party was aware of plaintiff’s lumbar disc injuries or left hip degenerative joint disease at that time … .

A plaintiff seeking to invalidate a release on the ground that it was not fairly and knowingly entered into must establish that “the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, [or that] it was not ‘fairly and knowingly’ made” … . Again accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , we agree with plaintiff that, in the complaint and his affidavit in opposition to the motion, he sufficiently alleged facts on which to invalidate the release on the ground of whether the release was fairly and knowingly entered into inasmuch as plaintiff averred in his affidavit in opposition to the motion that, inter alia, he signed the release a short time after the accident occurred, he is unable to fluently read, understand or speak English, he did not understand the release, at the time he signed the release he did not have an attorney, he was not provided with an interpretation of the release, and he needed money for a vehicle in order to attend medical appointments … . Pastrana-Ortiz v Wemple, 2025 NY Slip Op 03425, Fourth Dept 6-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for explanations of the criteria for invalidating a release (1) due to fraud, (2) due to mutual mistake, and (3) because it was “not fairly and knowingly made.”

 

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