You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Her Injuries Were Related to a Preexisting Condition

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department reversed the motion court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant in an automobile-accident personal injury action.  The Fourth Department determined plaintiff had not raised a question of fact in response to the proof submitted by defendant that her injuries were linked to a preexisting condition, and not the accident:

“[E]ven where there is objective medical proof [of a serious injury], when additional contributory factors interrupt the chain of causation between the accident and claimed injury—such as a gap in treatment, an intervening medical problem or a preexisting condition—summary dismissal of the complaint may be appropriate” …. Here, defendants met their initial burden on the motion with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use, significant limitation of use, and 90/180-day categories by offering “persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition” … .  Kwitek… v Seier…, CA 12-01607, 352, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Question of Fact About Defect In Diving Board Precluded Summary Judgment Based Upon Primary Assumption of Risk

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped from a diving board at defendant’s pool.  In finding a question of fact had been raised about whether there existed a concealed or unreasonably increased risk on the surface of the diving board, the Fourth Department explained the applicable law:

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “generally constitutes a complete defense to an action to recover damages for personal injuries . . . and applies to the voluntary participation in sporting activities” .. . Under that doctrine, “a person who voluntarily participates in a sporting activity generally consents, by his or her participation, to those injury-causing events, conditions[] and risks [that] are inherent in the activity” … . The owner of recreational premises owes a duty “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, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . A plaintiff, however, will not be deemed to have consented to “concealed or unreasonably increased risks” … . Thus, in assessing whether the relevant duty has been breached, it must be determined “whether the conditions caused by the defendant[’s] negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . Menter v City of Olean, CA 12-01304, 308, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Leave To Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted

The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint, noting:

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit… “.

… A “court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face” … .  Holst…v Liberatore…, CA 12-01575, 243, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

, ,

2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of Control of Her Vehicle

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ determination that a 21/2 inch drop off in the shoulder of a road was not the proximate cause of a driver’s losing control of her vehicle.  The doctrine of “qualified immunity” in connection with road defects is explained. Marrow… v State…, CA 12-00974, 241, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s Vehicle Was Repaired—Therefore Dealership Was Not Vicariously Liable for Injury Caused by the Driver of the Loaned Car

In reversing the motion court and granting summary judgment to defendant car dealership, the Fourth Department (over a dissent) determined that defendant dealership was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore could not be held vicariously liable under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388.  Defendant’s employee (the daughter of the owner) agreed to lend her personal car to one Leederman while Leederman’s vehicle was being fixed at the dealership.  All of defendant’s “loaner cars” were in use and the dealership’s owner asked his daughter to lend her car to Leederman.  Leederman, in turn, let defendant Trummer use the car.  Trummer was driving when the accident occurred.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, an owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligent use or operation of such vehicle by anyone operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission (see § 388 [1] …).The term “owner” is defined as “[a] person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a vehicle . . . The term includes a person entitled to the use and possession of a vehicle . . . subject to a security interest in another person and also includes any lessee or bailee of a motor vehicle . . . having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty days” (§ 128; see § 388 [3]).

We agree with defendant that it established as a matter of law that it was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident at issue, and that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to ownership of that vehicle.  Monette v Trummer, et al, CA 12-01274, 79, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument of Harm Doctrine Not Applicable

Plaintiff was standing on a barrel performing work for his employer.  In reaching for a tool he grabbed onto some bricks on a column.  The bricks came loose and plaintiff lost his balance and fell.  Plaintiff sued the parties responsible for installing the bricks six years before (pursuant to a contract with the employer).  In affirming summary judgment to the defendants, the Fourth Department wrote:

Here, defendants established as a matter of law that they did not owe any duty to plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although defendants had contractual obligations with respect to the construction of the project for plaintiff’s employer, as a general rule “a contractual obligation, standing alone, will . . . not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party,” i.e., a person who is not a party to the contract …. There is an exception to that general rule, however, “where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, ‘launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’ ” …, thereby “creat[ing] an unreasonable risk of harm to others, or increas[ing] that risk” …. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the instrument of harm doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case, and thus there was no duty of care running from defendants to plaintiff based on that doctrine ….  Spaulding v Loomis Masonry, Inc. et al, CA 12-01395, 32, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

Summary Judgment In Favor of Plaintiff-Company in Trespass Action Against Protesters Affirmed

The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff-company in its trespass action against People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH).  PUSH had staged “demonstrations concerning plaintiff’s use of funding it received to assist low-income customers with heating costs and increasing the energy efficiency of their homes.”  The Court determined the allegations of trespass were subject to the heightened standard of proof under the Civil Rights Law and further determined the heightened standard had been met:

According to [PUSH], this action constituted an impermissible Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP action) in violation of Civil Rights Law § 76-a (1), because it hindered defendants’ efforts to challenge the use by plaintiff of the funding in question … . * * *

We … reject plaintiff’s contention that the allegations in the trespass claims against PUSH do not constitute allegations within the meaning of a SLAPP action, inasmuch as they are indeed materially related to PUSH’s challenge to plaintiff’s application to renew its CIP permit. Thus, plaintiff’s action against PUSH was subject to “a heightened standard of proof” to avoid dismissal … . * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in trespass are an intentional entry onto the land of another without justification or permission . . . , or a refusal to leave after permission has been granted but thereafter withdrawn” … . It is well established that trespassing is not a protected First Amendment activity … . National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation v PUSH Buffalo, et al, 318, CA—12-01219, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

Scaffold, Safety Railing and Cross Braces Are Safety Devices

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) action based upon plaintiff’s fall from a scaffold, the Fourth Department noted that a scaffold, safety railing and cross braces are safety devices:

We agree with defendants … that the scaffold itself and the safety railing and cross braces on it constitute safety devices, and that the evidence submitted by plaintiff raises an issue of fact whether the safety devices provided by defendants afforded him proper protection, or whether additional devices were necessary … .

Justice Whalen dissented, arguing that, under the circumstances of plaintiff’s work on the scaffold, the safety railing and cross railings were not adequate safety devices. Kuntz v WNYG Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., et al, 1382, CA 12-00986, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

Ice and Snow Accumulation of Floor of Building Constituted Negligence as a Matter of Law 

The Fourth Department determined a worker was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law 241 (6) based on a slip and fall on ice and snow.  The ice and snow had accumulated on the floor of a building where the worker was framing interior walls:

Plaintiff alleged that defendants were liable for his injury pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) based on their alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which concerns slipping hazards arising from, inter alia, ice and snow. It is undisputed that there were in fact accumulations of ice and snow and that [defendant construction company] was made aware of that fact. Defendants presented no evidence in opposition to demonstrate that the floor was reasonably and adequately safe despite the violation (see § 241 [6]), and thus the court properly determined as a matter of law that defendants were negligent. Thompson v 1241 PVR, LLC, et al, 270, CA 12-01485, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

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