You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES ON APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN AN APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, THE COURT EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INSTANT APPEAL; THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS BROUGHT BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED HER CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense judgment as a matter of law in this medical malpractice case, determined: (1) although the issues could have been raised in the appeal of the original judgment which was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Second Department exercised its jurisdiction to consider the issues in this appeal from the denial of the motion to reargue; (2) the motion for a judgment as a matter of law was premature (made before plaintiff closed her case) and therefore should not have been granted:

… [A]s a general rule we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so … . Here, the plaintiff appealed from the March 29, 2018 judgment entered in favor of the defendants, and that appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, including that the appeal from the judgment was still pending at the time the notice of appeal was filed from the subject order made upon reargument, we exercise our jurisdiction to review the issues properly raised on the appeal from the order … . …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint were made before the close of the plaintiff’s case, and were not based upon admissions by the plaintiff. Fuchs v Long Beach Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 06153, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the common-law indemnification action against defendant Ergonomic should have been granted because Ergonomic was not shown to be negligent or to have exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Portions of the floor were removed to access cables. Plaintiff alleged a leg of his ladder went into an area where the floor had been removed, causing him to fall. The First Department noted that coordinating and scheduling work does not rise to the level of supervision and control:

Ergonomic’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Owner Defendants’ third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution should have been granted. There was no evidence that Ergonomic was negligent or that it exercised actual supervision or control over the injury-producing work. Ergonomic did not perform any of the physical work and was not onsite at the time of the accident. To the extent it might have had authority to supervise the injury producing work, it never exercised such authority, but rather, had subcontracted such contractual duties to Quick, which actually directed and supervised the work … . The fact that Ergonomic scheduled and coordinated Quick’s and Atlas’s work is insufficient to give rise to liability, as the coordinating and scheduling of trades at work sites do not rise to the level of supervision and control necessary to impose liability under a negligence theory … . Balcazar v Commet 380, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06030, First Dept 11-4-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action at issue sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore, to avoid summary judgment, plaintiff was required to submit expert opinion evidence in opposition. Plaintiff’s decedent, a patient in a rehabilitation facility (defendant St. James), fell when walking unattended after going to the bathroom. Plaintiff alleged defendant’s failure to provide decedent with a bed alarm was a proximate cause of the fall. The motion court held that cause of action sounded in negligence and raised a jury question:

The essence of the allegation that St. James improperly failed to provide the decedent with a bed alarm which would have prevented his fall is that it improperly assessed his condition and the degree of supervision necessary to prevent him from falling, which sounds in medical malpractice … . Thus, with respect to this allegation, St. James bore the initial burden of establishing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … .

In response to St. James’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by submitting an expert opinion that specifically addressed the defense expert’s assertions … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of St. James’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged a failure to provide the decedent with a bed alarm. Losak v St. James Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 05961, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE POLICE; THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INTERNAL RULES IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE FOR POLICE-CHASES THAN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THE INTERNAL RULES COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s judgment after trial and ordering a new trial in this traffic accident case, determined the defendant police department’s internal police-chase rules should not have been admitted in evidence without a limiting instruction explaining the rules could be considered as some evidence of negligence. The internal rules imposed a higher standard of care for police-chases than the reckless-disregard standard imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed by a driver who was being pursued by the police. The jury found both the driver and the police negligent:

The Suffolk County defendants are correct that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence, without any limiting instruction, the Suffolk County Police Department Rules and Procedures on vehicular pursuits. An organization’s internal rules or manuals, “to the extent they impose a higher standard of care than is imposed by law, are inadmissible to establish” a violation of the standard of care … .

Here, the rules and regulations at issue imposed a higher standard of care than the reckless disregard standard imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, which “‘qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation, and precludes the imposition of liability for otherwise privileged conduct except where the driver acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others'” … . Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court committed reversible error in admitting the internal rules without providing a limiting instruction that the rules could be considered only as some evidence of recklessness along with other factors … . Foster v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05956, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant insurance-broker’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action was properly denied, and the motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation cause of action should have been denied. The issues are whether the insured made a specific request for coverage and whether there was a special relationship between the insured and defendant broker:

“An insurance agent or broker has a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for a client within a reasonable amount of time, or to inform the client of the inability to do so … . Generally, “‘[t]o set forth a case for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, a plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy'” … . “Thus, the duty is defined by the nature of the client’s request” … . However, “[w]here a special relationship develops between the broker and client, . . . the broker may be liable, even in the absence of a specific request, for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage” … .

… [T]he defendant insurance broker failed to meet its initial burden of tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the plaintiff client made a specific request for coverage which was not obtained … . … [T]riable issues of fact exist as to whether a specific interaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding a question of coverage related to the plaintiff’s renovation work on the insured property that could give rise to a special relationship between the parties … . Copacabana Realty, LLC v A.J. Benet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05944, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SISTER CARRIED A GENE WHICH INCREASED THE CHANCE OF DEVELOPING OVARIAN CANCER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined evidence that plaintiff’s decedent’s sister carried a gene which increased the chance of developing ovarian cancer should have been admitted:

“Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant’s departure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury” … . “‘A plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased the injury, as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome or increased [the] injury'” … .

The evidence that the decedent’s sister tested positive for the harmful variant of the BRCA2 gene was not unduly prejudicial and was relevant to the issue of proximate cause, as it would have supported the plaintiff’s argument and the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert that the decedent would have undergone gene testing if properly advised to do so, and more likely than not would have tested positive for the harmful gene variant and undergone a procedure to remove her ovaries, diminishing her chances of developing ovarian cancer. This evidence also would have contradicted the position of the Akhund defendants that the decedent’s chances of testing positive for the harmful gene variant were as low as 2.5 to 5% … . The weight to be accorded to this evidence is a matter to be determined by the jury … . Walsh v Akhund, 2021 NY Slip Op 05890, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant asked him to trim some tree branches. Plaintiff placed his own ladder on mulch which he (plaintiff) had spread there as part of his landscaping work. Plaintiff alleged the mulch constituted a dangerous condition which caused the ladder to tip. Plaintiff also alleged the owner exercised supervision and control over his work and was liable for directing him to trim the tree:

Even assuming that defendant had a conversation with plaintiff, the request to trim the trees was a general instruction about what needed to be done without any direction about how to perform the task … . It is undisputed that defendant neither provided any equipment for the project nor directed the manner in which the ladder was placed or the trimming performed … . …

As to the dangerous condition theory of liability, … defendant did not create the hazard, as it is undisputed that plaintiff and his associates were the ones who spread the mulch and placed the ladder … . Nor is there any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant was not shown to have expertise in landscaping and, even if he was inside the house when the ladder was being set up on the mulch, this general awareness would be insufficient to establish notice of an unsafe condition … . Vickers v Parcells, 2021 NY Slip Op 05762, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

, ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public nuisance and negligence causes of action stemming from odors from a landfill should have been dismissed. The public nuisance cause of action alleged only injury to the public at large, not the required special injury unique to the parties. The negligence cause of action did not allege any tangible property damage or physical injury:

… [P]laintiffs here have not asserted an injury that is different in kind from the relevant community at large, which, in our view, consists of the other homeowners and renters impacted by the landfill’s odors … . * * *

To recover in negligence, a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct … . …

… [T]he noxious odors at issue are transient in nature and do not have a continuing physical presence. … [P]laintiffs have not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors. … [T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiffs’ property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law … . Davies v S.A. Dunn & Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05751, Third Dept 10-21-21

Similar issues and result in Duncan v Capital Region Landfills, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05757, Third Dept 10-21-21

​

,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE DID NOT SEE THE PEDESTRIAN HE STRUCK UNTIL AFTER THE CONTACT OCCURRED; DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY-DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined defendant’s allegations did not support the “emergency” defense in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case:

Defendant maintains that he did not see plaintiff before she was struck by his vehicle and that she was not in the crosswalk when he began turning onto the avenue; it was only after plaintiff was struck that defendant observed her in the crosswalk. “Without having perceived or reacted to any emergency, the defendant may not rely on the emergency doctrine to excuse [his] conduct” … . De Diaz v Klausner, 2021 NY Slip Op 05624, First Dept 10-14-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DOCTOR PRACTICED IN THE BRONX FOR PART OF EACH WEEK, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF HIS BUSINESS AND HIS RESIDENCE WERE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS TREATED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County in this medical malpractice action. The defendant doctor (Goldstein) was described by plaintiff as an “individually-owned business” with a “principal office” in Bronx County. Dr. Goldstein treats some patients in Bronx County. But plaintiff was treated by Dr. Goldstein in Westchester County, where defendant business (Westmed) is located and where Dr. Goldstein resides:

Under CPLR 503(d), “[a] partnership or an individually-owned business shall be deemed a resident of any county in which it has its principal office, as well as the county in which the partner or individual owner suing or being sued actually resides.” * * *

While … registration documents confirmed … that Dr. Goldstein also worked in the Bronx, the venue statute does not deem an individually-owned business a resident of every county where it has an office or transacts business. To conclude otherwise would read the phrase “principal office” out of the statute. Lividini v Goldstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05618, CtApp 10-14-21

 

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