You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

CHAIN ACROSS DRIVEWAY WAS NOT “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a chain hanging across a driveway from two yellow posts was not “open and obvious” as a matter of law. Plaintiff allegedly tripped over the chain on a dark and rainy night. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, therefore, should not have been granted:

While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition … , there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous … . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is fact-specific, and usually a question of fact for a jury … . “Whether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the chain was open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident … . Lazic v Trump Vil. Section 3, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09075, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (CHAIN ACROSS DRIVEWAY NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS MATTER OF LAW)/OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (CHAIN ACROSS DRIVEWAY NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW)

FACT THAT PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN THE LEAD VEHICLE, WAS NOT AT FAULT IN THE REAR-END COLLISION DOES NOT LEAD TO THE AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT; HERE THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY OIL ON THE ROADWAY; SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE REAR DRIVER AT FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined the driver of a vehicle which struck the rear of a stopped vehicle (in which plaintiff was a passenger) raised a question of fact about whether the accident was unavoidable because of oil on the roadway. The Second Department took the time to explain, in detail, what the proof burdens are in the context of a rear-end collision. Here, the fact that the plaintiff-passenger was not at fault should not have given rise to the automatic conclusion the driver of the rear vehicle was at fault. In addition to the allegation oil on the road made it impossible to stop, there was a question whether the driver of the lead vehicle was comparatively at fault for stopping in the roadway to let off passengers:

We take this opportunity to caution that trial courts must be careful to avoid concluding, in rear-end accident cases, that just because a plaintiff is a passenger in the lead vehicle, the liability of the rear vehicle is automatically established. It is not. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must meet the twofold burden of establishing that he or she was free from comparative fault and was, instead, an innocent passenger, and, separately, that the operator of the rear vehicle was at fault. If the plaintiff fails to demonstrate, prima facie, that the operator of the offending vehicle was at fault, or if triable issues of fact are raised by the defendants in opposition, as here, summary judgment on the issue of liability must be denied, even if the moving plaintiff was an innocent passenger … .

We further note that [the driver of the rear vehicle] aised the issue of the [lead vehicle driver’s] comparative fault by asserting that the van was partially stopped in the moving lane of traffic. A plaintiff’s right as an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of liability is not barred or restricted by any potential issue of comparative fault as between the owners and operators of the two vehicles involved in the accident … . Thus, had the only triable issue of fact raised [by the rear driver] been the [lead driver’s] comparative fault, the plaintiff would have been entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability against [the rear driver]. However, since [the rear driver] raised a triable issue of fact as to whether [he was] completely free from fault, “[t]his matter involves more than simply a trier of fact’s apportionment of fault between both defendants” … . Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability against [the rear driver]. Phillip v D&D Carting Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09084, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISIONS, BURDENS OF PROOF WHERE PLAINTIFF IS PASSENGER IN LEAD VEHICLE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (BURDENS OF PROOF WHERE PLAINTIFF IS PASSENGER IN LEAD VEHICLE)

BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department noted that, although a property owner is under no duty to remove snow and ice during a storm, if snow removal efforts are made, in moving for summary judgment, the property owner (here Chestnut Oaks) must affirmatively demonstrate the snow removal efforts did not create a hazardous condition. Chestnut Oaks’ failure to so demonstrate required denial of the motion:

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the Chestnut Oaks defendants had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that they neither created the ice condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . “Under the so-called storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . A person responsible for maintaining property is not under a duty to remove ice and snow until a reasonable time after the cessation of the storm … . However, if a storm is ongoing, and a property owner elects to remove snow, it must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm … . In such an instance, a property owner moving for summary judgment in a slip and fall case must demonstrate in support of its motion that the snow removal efforts it undertook neither created nor exacerbated the allegedly hazardous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall … . DeMonte v Chestnut Oaks at Chappaqua, 2015 NY Slip Op 08800, 2nd Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/SLIP AND FALL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/HAZARDOUS CONDITION, CREATION OF (SNOW REMOVAL)/SNOW REMOVAL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION)

,

PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT REBUTTED BY MOTHER’S EXPERT.

Reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined expert testimony on behalf of the mother rebutted the petitioner’s prima facie case of neglect. The court noted the nature of petitioner’s prima facie proof is akin to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in negligence. Proof of an injury to a child which would not occur if the child had been in the care of a responsible caregiver is enough to make out a prima facie case. Expert testimony demonstrating the injuries may have occurred when the child was not in the mother’s care and further demonstrating alternate causes of the injuries was sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of neglect/abuse:

Section 1046(a)(ii) of the Family Court Act permits a finding of abuse based upon evidence of an injury to a child which would ordinarily not occur absent acts or omissions of the responsible caretaker, and “authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur” … . “If the petitioner establishes a prima facie case of abuse, the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability,’ although the burden of proof always remains with the petitioner” … .

The petitioner established a prima facie case of abuse … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, however, the mother presented sufficient evidence to rebut the petitioner’s case, through the testimony of her expert witness. The mother’s expert witness testified that the injuries … occurred during a period of time when the petitioner had not established that [the child] was in the exclusive care of the mother. Additionally, the expert opined that the injuries could have resulted from alternate mechanisms. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother abused [the child] … . Matter of Miguel G. (Navil G.). 2015 NY Slip Op 08834, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT NOT ESTABLISHED, PETITIONER’S CASE REBUTTED)/NEGLECT (PETITIONER’S PRIMA FACIE CASE REBUTTED BY EXPERT TESTIMONY)/EXPERT TESTIMONY (SUFFICIENT TO REBUT PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT)

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED AND CLEANED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendant transit authority did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a slip and fall hazard because it did not present evidence of when the area was last cleaned and inspected or what the area looked like prior to the slip and fall:

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence … . ” To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell'” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the nonmoving party, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The defendant failed to set forth when the subject platform was last inspected or what it looked like prior to the accident, and it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition … . Roman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 08820,  2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (LACK OF NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE)//SLIP AND FALL (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE)/NOTICE OF SLIP AND FALL HAZARD (FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF)

ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD VEHICLE STOPPED FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE REAR-END COLLISION.

The Second Department determined that defendant’s (Balenescu’s) allegation that plaintiff (Galuten, who was in the lead vehicle) suddenly stopped for no apparent reason raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff’s negligence caused or contributed to the accident:

Mere evidence of a sudden stop, without more, is not enough to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the operator of the stopped vehicle was partly at fault, so as to defeat summary judgment … . However, while vehicle stops under prevailing traffic conditions are forseeable and must be anticipated by the following driver, where the sudden stop is unexplained by the existing circumstances and conditions, an issue of fact as to liability is raised … .

Here, Balenescu averred, inter alia, that when he was “25 yards from the Galuten vehicle, still traveling at 15 miles per hour, the light turned green, and the Galuten vehicle . . . accelerated safely through the intersection into the next block.” Then about 10 yards past the intersection of West 23rd Street and 12th Avenue, the Galuten vehicle suddenly stopped short “for no apparent reason,” as there was no traffic “for fifty yards in front of the Galuten vehicle,” and the Galuten vehicle showed no signs, nor made any signals, to signify that it was stopping. This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Galuten’s alleged negligence caused or contributed to the accident … . Etingof v Metropolitan Laundry Mach. Sales, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08803, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, UNEXPLAINED STOP)/REAR-END COLLISION (UNEXPLAINED STOP)

SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT DID NOT VIOLATE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found that the seven-year delay between defendant’s arrest and indictment did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The court explained the relevant law:

A defendant’s right to a speedy trial is guaranteed both by the United States Constitution … . Moreover, an unjustified delay in prosecution will deprive a defendant of the State constitutional right to due process … . However, “a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process even though there may be some prejudice to defendant” … . Where there has been extended delay, the People have the burden to establish good cause … .

In determining whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, the Court of Appeals has articulated five factors to be considered: (1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charges; (4) any extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) any impairment of the defendant’s defense … . These factors apply as well to the due process guarantee … . “In this State, we have never drawn a fine distinction between due process and speedy trial standards’ when dealing with delays in prosecution” … . People v Allen, 2015 NY Slip Op 08850, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, SEVEN YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (SEVEN YEARS BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT)

NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined defendant’s notice to admit sought concessions that went to the heart of the controversy which should not have been deemed admitted:

CPLR 3123(a) authorizes the service of a notice to admit upon a party, and provides that if a timely response thereto is not served, the contents of the notice are deemed admitted … . However, the purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from contention those matters which are not in dispute in the litigation and which may be readily disposed of … . A notice to admit is not to be employed to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, or to compel admissions of fundamental and material issues or contested ultimate facts … .

Here, as the plaintiff correctly contends, … the notice to admit improperly sought concessions that went to the essence of the controversy between the parties and involved matters that clearly were in contravention of the allegations of the complaint. Thus, the third-party defendant could not have reasonably believed that the admissions he sought were not in substantial dispute … , and those items were palpably improper … . Accordingly, the plaintiff was not obligated to respond to them … . The Supreme Court therefore erred in deeming those items admitted by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the notice. Since those items should not have been deemed admitted, the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3123(b) to withdraw those deemed admissions was unnecessary. 32nd Ave. LLC v Angelo Holding Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08824, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY USED)/NOTICE TO ADMIT (IMPROPERLY USED)

DEFAULT JUDGMENT GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT.

The Second Department, in affirming a cross-motion for summary judgment, explained that plaintiffs’ action was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata based upon a default judgment taken against them. Plaintiffs did not move to vacate the default judgment. Therefore the judgment precluded plaintiffs’ action as to any matters actually litigated and any matters that might have been litigated in the prior action:

“[R]es judicata, or claim preclusion, bars successive litigation based upon the same transaction or series of connected transactions if: (i) there is a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (ii) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party to the previous action, or in privity with a party who was” … . “The doctrine is applicable to an order or judgment taken by default which has not been vacated, as well as to issues which were or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … . Here, an order was issued in a declaratory judgment action granting the unopposed motion of the plaintiffs therein for leave to enter a default judgment against, inter alia, the appellants, who were named defendants in that action, upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint in that action. That order is conclusive for res judicata purposes as to any matters actually litigated or that might have been litigated in that action, and precludes the appellants from maintaining this action … . Albanez v Charles, 2015 NY Slip Op 08795,  2nd Dept 12-2-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAS RES JUDICATA EFFECT)/RES JUDICATA (DEFAULT JUDGMENT HAS RES JUDICATA EFFECT)/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT)

, ,

FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.

The Second Department determined a police officer’s common law negligence and General Municipal Law 205-e actions should not have been dismissed.  The officer tripped over an electric cord at the office.  The firefighter rule did not bar the suit because the injury was not the result of the heightened risk associated with police work. The General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action was correctly based upon an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a:

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the firefighter rule barred the plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging common-law negligence. The injured plaintiff’s injury did not occur during an act in furtherance of a police function which exposed her to a heightened risk of sustaining that injury. The performance of her duties merely furnished the occasion for the injury. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the condition complained of … . Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in directing dismissal of the plaintiffs’ common-law negligence cause of action.

The Supreme Court also erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. General Municipal Law § 205-e permits a police officer to assert a tort claim against a fellow officer or an employer. To establish a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a police officer plaintiff must (1) identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, (2) describe the manner in which the police officer was injured, and (3) set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm … . As a prerequisite to recovery pursuant to a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action, “a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Here, the plaintiffs predicate their General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action on Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1). The Supreme Court correctly determined that Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) may appropriately serve as a statutory predicate for a section 205-e cause of action, and does so here … . Kelly v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08808, 2nd Dept 12-2-15

NEGLIGENCE (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/MUNICIPAL LAW ([POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK, FIREFIGHTER RULE)/FIREFIGHTER RULE (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e (POLICE OFFICER TRIPPED OVER ELECTRIC CORD AT WORK)/LABOR LAW 27-a(3)(a)(1) (VIOLATION AS PREDICATE FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION)

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