You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a piece of the facade of a brownstone which came loose. Plaintiff sued Keyspan Energy Delivery and Harris Water Main and Sewer Contractors alleging excavation work done by the defendants near the building loosened the facade:

Keyspan established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … by demonstrating, through the submission of … an affidavit of a professional engineer, that its work in the roadway did not create the alleged dangerous condition … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting … an affidavit from a professional engineer that rebutted the opinion of Keyspan’s expert. …

Harris contracted with the building owners to complete work on a broken pipe connecting the building to the sewer line in the middle of the street. A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140). “[A]n exception to this rule applies where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of contractual duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, such as by creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition” … . The plaintiffs alleged that the vibrations from Harris’s work in the roadway created or exacerbated the alleged dangerous condition on the facade of the subject building. Harris’s submissions, which did not include an expert affidavit from a professional engineer, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that its work in the roadway did not create or exacerbate the dangerous condition … . Payne v Murray, 2021 NY Slip Op 05576, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine plaintiff police officer’s petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted and his complaint against two fellow police officers should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the two officers negligently tased him. Plaintiff cannot sue the fellow officers in tort, and his exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation:

While a police officer can assert a common-law tort cause of action against the general public pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106(1), “liability against a fellow officer or employer can only be based on the statutory right of action in General Municipal Law § 205-e” … . General Municipal Law § 205-e(1) specifies that “nothing in this section shall be deemed to expand or restrict any right afforded to or limitation imposed upon an employer, an employee or his or her representative by virtue of any provisions of the workers’ compensation law” … .

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee . . . when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” … . Thus, the Workers’ Compensation Law “offers the only remedy for injuries caused by [a] coemployee’s negligence” in the course of employment … . “[A] defendant, to have the protection of the exclusivity provision, must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Walsh v Knudsen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05607, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE LIABILITY OF THE ELEVATOR COMPANY UNDER A NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE THEORY OR A RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY REQUIRED THE DENIAL OF THE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ELEVATOR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND THEN STOPPED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the elevator company (Otis) was liable for injuries allegedly caused by the sudden acceleration and stop of the elevator under a negligent maintenance theory and a res ipsa loquitur theory:

The plaintiff’s expert, Patrick Carrajat, an elevator and escalator consultant, whose affidavit the plaintiff submitted in opposition to Otis’s summary judgment motion, concurred with McPartland’s [defendant’s expert’s] opinion that “the probable cause of the accident was a clipped interlock.” Carrajat disagreed, however, with McPartland’s contention that a clipped interlock was something Otis could not reasonably have been expected to prevent. In Carrajat’s view, proper inspection and maintenance would have revealed either improper adjustment, loosening or shifting, or excessive wear of certain components. Carrajat also explained why he disagreed with McPartland’s opinion that external factors, such as a person making contact with the hallway elevator doors or some sort of debris caught in the elevator’s “door sill,” could have caused the accident. …

The plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to Otis’s liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by submitting proof that the sudden descent and abrupt stop of the elevator was an occurrence that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, that the maintenance and service of the elevator was in the exclusive control of Otis, and that no act or negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the accident … . Syrnik v Board of Mgrs. of the Leighton House Condominium, 2021 NY Slip Op 05603, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

,

AFTER STOPPING THE CAR OCCUPIED BY TEENAGERS AND ARRESTING THE DRIVER AND A PASSENGER, THE POLICE RELEASED THE CAR TO DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE A CAR WITH MORE THAN ONE PASSENGER UNDER 21; THE DEFENDANT DRIVER THEN HAD AN ACCIDENT: THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE BREACHED A SPECIAL DUTY OWED THE INJURED PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined: (1) the action against the town police department should have been dismissed because the police department cannot be sued as an entity separate from the town; and (2) the action against the town properly survived summary judgment. The police had stopped a car occupied by teenagers and arrested the driver and one passenger for possession of marijuana. The police then released to car to defendant Tatavitto who was not authorized to drive a car with more than one passenger under 21. Tatavitto then had an accident. There was a question of fact whether the town breached a special duty owed to plaintiff by allowing Tatavitto to drive the car:

… [A] special duty has four elements: “‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative conduct'” … . Here, there was direct contact between the officers and the occupants of the vehicle. The Town defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the officers, through their affirmative acts, assumed an affirmative duty to the plaintiff, whether the officers had reason to believe that releasing the vehicle to Tatavitto would permit him to drive the vehicle in violation of law, which increased the risk of an accident, and whether their conduct “lulled” the plaintiff into a false sense of security and induced him either to relax his own vigilance or forgo other avenues of protection—which was not offered by the officers—and thereby placed him in a worse position than he would have been had the officers never assumed any duty to him … . Stevens v Town of E. Fishkill Police Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 05602, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

, ,

THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s expert’s conclusory affidavit alleging defendant’s vehicle was unsafe did not raise a question of fact in this products liability action stemming from the rollover of a vehicle made by defendant (Ford):

The defective design claim should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing that the Ford van was not negligently designed. ‘Where a qualified expert opines that a particular product is defective or dangerous, describes why it is dangerous, explains how it can be made safer, and concludes that it is feasible to do so, it is usually for the jury to make the required risk-utility analysis” whether the product was reasonably safe … . However, an expert cannot raise an issue of fact to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the opinion consists of only bare conclusory allegations of alleged defects or industry wide knowledge … . Here, plaintiffs’ expert’s assertions that the vehicle at issue was unsafe and prone to rollovers was unsupported by any data or calculations concerning the testing he purportedly performed, testing he described in the most conclusory of terms and general of statements … . Richards v Ford Motor Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05469, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, , , ,

NYC’S RIGHT OF WAY LAW CRIMINALIZES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE WHEN A VEHICLE STRIKES A PEDESTRIAN OR A BICYCLIST WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY; THE LAW IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS, PROPERLY IMPOSES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE AS THE MENS REA, AND IS NOT PREEMPTED BY OTHER LAWS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a concurring opinion, determined New York City’s “Right of Way Law,” which criminalizes ordinary negligence when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way, is constitutional and is not preempted by other laws. Both defendants were convicted under the Right of Way Law (NYC Administrative Code 19-190), a misdemeanor. The defendants unsuccessfully argued (1) the law is void for vagueness; (2) ordinary negligence cannot constitute the mens rea for a criminal act; and (3) the law is preempted by the Penal Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Article 15 of the Penal Law lists and defines four “culpable mental states”—”intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” and “criminal negligence” … . However, strict liability is also contemplated by article 15: “[t]he minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which [such person] is physically capable of performing,” and, “[i]f such conduct is all that is required for commission of a particular offense, . . . such offense is one of ‘strict liability'” … . * * *

The provisions of the Penal Law “govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined outside” of the Penal Law, “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context otherwise requires” (Penal Law § 5.05 [2]). The two key provisions at issue, Penal Law § 15.00 (Culpability; definitions of terms) and § 15.05 (Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states), expressly provide otherwise by making clear that they are “applicable to this chapter” only. Further contradicting defendants’ interpretation of article 15 is the legislature’s own use of an ordinary negligence mens rea for offenses defined outside the Penal Law. For example … Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 and Agriculture and Markets Law § 370—which were enacted after the relevant provisions in article 15 of the Penal Law—both employ an ordinary negligence standard for imposing criminal liability. People v Torres, 2021 NY Slip Op 05448, CtApp 10-12-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY AND THE ADMISSION OF MEDICAL RECORDS IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The trial court had erroneously precluded some of the testimony of one of plaintiff’s treating physicians and the admission of another treating physician’s medical records. The defendant had waived any objection to the records by failing to object after service of plaintiff’s notice of intention to enter the documents:

At the trial on the issue of damages, the plaintiff called one of her treating physicians, Irving Friedman, as a witness. The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s application to preclude Friedman’s testimony concerning the cervical and thoracic regions of the plaintiff’s spine based upon a conceded error Friedman made wherein he misidentified the MRI of the plaintiff’s spine … . Under the circumstances of this case, any defects in Friedman’s opinions or the foundations on which those opinions are based “should go to the weight to be accorded that evidence by the trier of fact, not to its admissibility in the first instance” … .

In addition, the Supreme Court erred in precluding Friedman’s testimony regarding future treatment and possible need for future surgery, as Friedman had addressed these issues in his medical reports … .

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in precluding the admission of the medical records of another of the plaintiff’s treating physicians, Rubin Ingber, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant waived his right to any objection to the admission of the records as business records, as he failed to timely object after having been served with the plaintiff’s notice of her intention to enter the documents into evidence pursuant to CPLR 3122- … . Benguigui v Racer, 2021 NY Slip Op 05318, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HIRING THE DEFENDANT WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THE SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF, THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT AND THE PLAINTIFF OR THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED NEAR PLAINTIFF’S HOME; THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring and retention cause of action against the church defendants should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged plaintiff, who was seven years old, was abducted near her home, taken to a secluded area, and sexually assaulted by the defendant. The court noted that the church defendants may have been negligent in hiring the defendant, but there was no connection between the offense committed by the defendant and his employment:

With respect to a cause of action alleging negligent hiring and retention, “[t]he employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring and retention of the employee” … . As such, a necessary element of a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention is a nexus or connection between the defendant’s negligence in hiring and retaining the offending employee and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Here, the plaintiff failed to allege any such nexus, since the sexual assault occurred far from the Church’s premises, and there is no allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff had any prior contact with the alleged attacker, any prior relationship with any of the defendants, or even any knowledge, at the time of the sexual assault, that the alleged attacker was employed by the defendants. Roe v Domestic & Foreign Missionary Socy. of the Prot. Episcopal Church, 2021 NY Slip Op 05360, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

A TOWN IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER IN A “FIRE DISTRICT,” BUT IS LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER IN A “FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for leave to file a late notice of claim against the town in this traffic accident case should not have been denied on the ground the town was not liable for an accident caused by a member of the fire company. Plaintiff alleged the defendant driver was acting within the scope of his duties as a firefighter at the time of the accident. The Fourth Department noted that a town is not liable for the negligence of a volunteer fireman in the employ of a “fire district,” but is liable for the negligence of a member of a “fire protection district:”

A fire district is a “wholly independent political subdivision whose members, including its volunteer firemen, are employees of the district and not of the town” … . The “fire district rather than the town appoints its own members, furnishes fire and ambulance service and is liable for negligence on the part of its members, including their negligent operation of vehicles” … . Accordingly, a “town is not liable on the theory of respondent superior for the negligence of a volunteer fireman in the employ of a fire district” … .

In contrast, “a fire protection district is simply a geographic area, with no independent corporate status, for which the town board is responsible for providing for the furnishing of fire protection” …  and, “[t]o that end, [a town board] may ‘contract with any city, village, fire district or incorporated fire company . . . for the furnishing of fire protection’ ” … . “Members of the fire departments or companies established within a fire protection district ‘are deemed officers, employees, or appointees of the town[,] and the town is liable for any negligence on the part of such members’ ” … . Matter of Froelich v South Wilson Volunteer Fire Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05207, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Paddock Chevrolet was immune from suit by its employee in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff, a salesman for Paddock, was a passenger in a car owned by Paddock which was being test-driven at the time of the accident. The court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Law protected Paddock from vicarious liability as the owner of the car pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed by [section 10] shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, . . . or any person otherwise entitled to recover damages, contribution or indemnity, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death or liability arising therefrom . . .” We thus agree with Paddock that plaintiff’s claims against it are barred.

Paddock correctly contends that New York has rejected the “dual capacity” doctrine … , rendering it irrelevant whether the amended complaint and cross claims asserted against Paddock were based on its status as plaintiff’s employer or its status as the owner of the vehicle who is vicariously liable for the negligence of a nonemployee driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Mansour v Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05190, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

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