You are here: / Negligence
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OR A CO-EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s “Workers’-Compensation-exclusive-recovery” defense should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident driving defendant’s van, which plaintiff alleged was not properly maintained. Defendant unsuccessfully argued plaintiff was a special employee or a co-employee of defendant and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

“Generally, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer or co-employee for injuries sustained in the course of employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6] … ). “For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer—a general employer and a special employer … . “A special employee is ‘one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another,’ and limited liability inures to the benefit of both the general and special employer” … . Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive. Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business. The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work” … . * * *

… [T]he evidence did not support a conclusion that a special employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant … at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the defendant was not a co-employee of the plaintiff at … the time of the accident. The defendant testified that prior to [the accident], he … began working for another car service company, and that, at the time of the accident, he was in Texas training for another employment opportunity. Chiloyan v Chiloyan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04696, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FLOODED PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE NUISANCE MAY INVOLVE INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment in this dispute about responsibility for storm water runoff which allegedly flooded plaintiff’s property. Supreme Court, however, erred in dismissing plaintiff’s negligence cause of action as duplicative of the nuisance cause of action:

The effect of defendant’s actions was to eliminate what was described as a retention pond on the cemetery land, causing the water to back up onto plaintiff’s property, which, prior to the placement of fill, had never experienced flooding. Since the fill was placed, plaintiff’s property flooded on four occasions, and plaintiff, after the first flood in February 2009, placed defendant on notice of the flood and the resulting damages and asked for its assistance to remedy the problem. Defendant denied responsibility for the flooding and took no remedial efforts to prevent further flooding. Although the causes of action for negligence and private nuisance arise out of the same undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the private nuisance claim arises solely out of the negligence claim. To the contrary, the facts as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint and bills of particulars demonstrate a viable theory of private nuisance based upon intentional conduct, i.e., that defendant eventually knew or should have known that its actions in placing the fill caused substantial interference and nevertheless continued it … . WFE Ventures, Inc. v GBD Lake Placid, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04683, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owner’s (Findlay’s) motion for summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had treated the motion as unopposed. However, plaintiff’s counsel was under the impression the parties had stipulated to an adjourned date. Leave to appeal was granted in the interest of justice. On the merits, plaintiff raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the “wet floor” warning:

[Supreme Court’s] order was not made upon notice and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a]). However, this Court is authorized to deem a notice of appeal a request for leave to appeal and to grant such leave for a determination on the merits in the interest of justice (CPLR 5701[c] …). Given the facts of this case, this Court grants plaintiff leave to appeal in the interest of justice. Relying on CPLR 2214 and 2004, the motion court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff’s counsel did not offer a valid explanation for his late filing. However, counsel filed his opposition pursuant to what he thought was a valid stipulation.  …

Given the T-shaped nature of the hallway in this case, there are issues of fact as to whether the first warning sign was adequate, especially since the floor in that area was dry. Indeed, “[t]he mere placement of a “wet floor warning sign does not automatically absolve a defendant of negligence” … . We also note that this housing development housed primarily elderly and handicapped individuals. Zubillaga v Findlay Teller Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04687, First Dept 8-12-21

 

, ,

THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF A LEFT TURN TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS BASED ON A STUDY FINDING THE SIGNAL WAS NOT WARRANTED; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY IN THIS HIGHWAY-PLANNING ACTION BY A PEDESTRIAN WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE MAKING A LEFT TURN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was crossing the street in the crosswalk with the pedestrian light in her favor when she was struck by a car making a left turn. There was a left turn lane but no left turn traffic signal. The city did not demonstrate the design of the traffic light was based upon a study which considered whether a left turn signal was warranted:

… [I]n the field of traffic design engineering, the State is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental entity may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate, or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan … . Immunity will apply only “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … .

Here, the City failed to establish that the design of the subject traffic signal, including the determination that no left-turn signal was warranted, was based on a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that the plaintiff would put to a jury … . Rosado v City of New Rochelle, 2021 NY Slip Op 04675, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF STEPPING IN A CRACK OR HOLE IN AN OUTDOOR ASPHALT BASKETBALL COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s personal injury action against the city was properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiff was playing basketball on an asphalt court and stepped into a crack or hole on the court. The concurrence expressed displeasure with the result in this case but acknowledged the court was constrained by precedent:

Assumption of risk is not an absolute defense but a measure of the defendant’s duty of care … . The defendant’s duty is “to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be. If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, [the participant] has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty”… .  This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it, including less than optimal conditions … However, participants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport … .

… [T]he defendant’s submissions in support of its motion, which included transcripts of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and his testimony at the hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and photographs depicting the accident site, reveal that the crack or hole in the surface of the basketball court which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s accident was clearly visible and the somewhat irregular nature of the surface was apparent … . Cruz v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04658, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

, ,

BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant managing agent was not liable based on the terms of managing agent’s contract with the cooperative where plaintiff fell:

Where … a managing agent is accused of nonfeasance which causes injury to a third party, it is subject to liability only where it has complete and exclusive control of the management and operation of the property in question … . A managing agent is not in complete and exclusive control of the premises where the owner has reserved to itself a certain amount of control in the written agreement … . …

… [T]he terms of the management agreement … established (1) that the resident manager, who was an employee of the cooperative, was responsible for supervising all personnel, including the maintenance staff, (2) that all personnel were employees of the cooperative, and (3) that all maintenance, repairs, and inspections were performed by the resident manger or members of the maintenance staff. Cacciuottolo v Brown Harris Stevens Mgt., 2021 NY Slip Op 04656, Second Dept 8-11-21​

 

, ,

THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the city was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed. A sink hole developed in front of plaintiff’s proper. The city concluded there was a leak in the water connection to plaintiff’s property and issued a violation requiring repair. Plaintiff had the area excavated and repaired the sink hole but allegedly discovered no leak. Plaintiff sued the city for the related expenses. The negligence cause of action did not fly because the city was exercising a governmental function and there was no special relationship between the city and plaintiff. However the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed:

An unjust enrichment claim is rooted in the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another” … . “To adequately plead such a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege that ‘(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … .

… [W]e find [the complaint] sufficiently alleged that the City was unjustly enriched, at the plaintiff’s expense, by the plaintiff’s excavation and repair of the public road where the sinkhole was located, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the City to retain what is sought to be recovered—i.e., the repaired road—without paying for those repairs … . The City had a duty to keep its public road in a reasonably safe condition … , and it could be unjustly enriched by being spared the expense of repairing the sinkhole in the road … . Moreover, the complaint alleges that the plaintiff only incurred fees in repairing the road because the City’s agent negligently informed her that she had to excavate the road to fix an alleged leak. This alleged benefit conferred on the City through its allegedly tortious conduct sufficiently pleads that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain the benefit … . Trenholm-Owens v City of Yonkers, 2021 NY Slip Op 04627, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT A CONTRACT DESCRIBES A PARTY AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IS NOT NECESSARILY DISPOSITIVE; DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE CONTRACT, THE COMPLAINT HERE STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint stated a cause of action against the school district as the employer of a therapist, Silecchia, who allegedly injured plaintiff-student in therapy session. Although the contract between the school district and Silecchia’s employer, PBS, stated PBS was responsible for the conduct of PBS’s employees, evidence suggested some control over PBS by the district:

Although the agreement provided that all employees of the service provider, which was defined as PBS, shall be deemed as employees of the service provider for all purposes and that the service provider alone would be responsible for their work, personal conduct, direction, and compensation, “[t]he fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Other provisions in the agreement, including the scope of services provision, which provided, … that parent training services shall be in coordination with the students’ classroom teachers and/or at the direction of the District’s Committee on Special Education, provided some indication that the District may have maintained control over the method and means by which PBS, and therefore, Silecchia, were to perform the work … . D. S. v Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 04626, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE; THE AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION ON PROPER WOUND CARE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit should not have been rejected on the ground the expert was not qualified to give an opinion on proper wound care, or on the ground the affidavit was conclusory:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the expert affirmation of Craig A. Nachbauer, a thoracic surgeon and Medical Director of the University of Vermont Health Network-CVPH Wound Center, who opined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the respondents departed from the accepted standard of care and that such departure resulted in decubitus ulcers and the disfigurement of the plaintiff’s knees … . … [T]he plaintiff’s expert raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondents failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the decubitus ulcers … , including allowing him to remain prone without turning or repositioning him for over 90 hours, without the use of pillows, foam, and gel pads to protect his hips or knees … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s expert established that his qualifications were sufficient to render an opinion as to the propriety of the wound care provided to the plaintiff in 2008 … . … [T]he plaintiff’s expert averred … that he had practiced surgery and wound care for approximately 30 years and that by virtue of his training and experience, he was fully familiar with the standards of accepted practice in the field of wound care, and with the responsibilities of hospital staff and physicians in the prevention and treatment of pressure/decubitus ulcers, as they existed in 2008. Cerrone v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04593, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21

 

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