JACKSON v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Katherine Jackson (plaintiff) was injured when she and her young granddaughter attempted to rehang a 50-pound sliding closet door in Katherine's apartment. The door slipped from their hands and fell on Katherine's foot. The plaintiffs sued to recover damages, alleging, among other things, that the New York City Housing Authority (defendant) was negligent in failing to repair the door. The plaintiffs asserted the closet door had been broken for several years and that the defendant had been notified of the condition. The defendant moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of proximate cause, contending that Katherine's intervening act of dropping the closet door broke the causal connection between any negligent conduct by the defendant and her injury.

Procedurally, this is an appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment below, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the complaint.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Katherine's act in attempting to rehang the closet door and the subsequent dropping of the door constituted an intervening or superseding act that broke the causal connection and absolved the defendant of liability.
Whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause based on the contention that the plaintiff's intervening act was unforeseeable and superseding.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Plaintiffs') Arguments

The defendant was negligent in failing to repair the closet door, which had been broken for several years.
The defendant had been notified of the broken condition.
The injury resulted from the defendant's failure to keep the closet door in good condition, making the plaintiff's actions and the resulting injury foreseeable.

Respondent's (Defendant's) Arguments

The defendant moved for summary judgment on proximate cause, arguing that Katherine's intervening act of dropping the closet door was a superseding act that broke the causal connection between the defendant's alleged negligence and her injury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kriz v Schum, 75 N.Y.2d 25, 36	An intervening act may be a superseding act which breaks the causal connection if it is extraordinary, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or far removed from the defendant's conduct.	Quoted as part of the controlling principle on when an intervening act can be a superseding cause that severs liability.
Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315	Same principle as Kriz regarding intervening acts as superseding causes; cited for foreseeability and causal connection analysis.	Used with Kriz to frame the legal standard for evaluating whether the plaintiff's act could be a superseding cause.
Lynch v Bay Ridge Obstetrical Gynecological Assocs., 72 N.Y.2d 632, 636	Whether an act is foreseeable and the course of events normal are generally questions for the fact finder; an intervening act that is a normal consequence of the situation created by a defendant cannot constitute a superseding cause.	Applied to emphasize that foreseeability and normalcy are jury questions and to support that a defendant is not absolved if the intervening act was a normal consequence.
Shutak v Handler, 190 A.D.2d 345	Illustrative authority that it can be foreseeable a tenant might attempt to repair a condition left unrepaired by the defendant.	Cited as an example supporting the proposition that Katherine's attempt to repair the door was foreseeable.
Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 N.Y.2d 819, 820	Reference regarding an injury being "entirely different in character" from that expected to result from the defendant's negligence.	Used to state that Katherine's injury was not entirely different in character from what would be expected from the defendant's failure to maintain the door.
Green v New York City Hous. Auth. ( 82 A.D.2d 780, affd 55 N.Y.2d 966)	Case where tenant placed a broken bedroom door, unbraced, against a wall and, days later, the door fell on an infant; the court concluded the tenant's act caused the accident and the injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.	The court distinguished Green on its facts, explaining Green's holding was not controlling because the circumstances there made the tenant's act the proximate cause, unlike the present case where foreseeability for the plaintiff's attempt to repair could be found by a jury.
McCann v City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 668	Authority recognizing that issues of fact should be resolved by a jury.	Cited to support the conclusion that the existence of triable issues precludes summary judgment and requires jury resolution.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by stating the governing legal standard: an intervening act is a superseding cause that breaks the causal connection only if it is extraordinary, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or far removed from the defendant's conduct (citing Kriz and Derdiarian). The court also noted that foreseeability and whether the course of events is normal are generally questions for the fact finder (citing Lynch), and that an intervening act which is a normal consequence of the situation created by the defendant cannot constitute a superseding cause.

Applying these principles to the record, the court found a triable issue of fact as to whether Katherine's actions in attempting to rehang the door were a normal and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's prolonged failure to repair the door. The court observed it was foreseeable that Katherine would attempt to repair the condition that had been neglected for a prolonged period (citing Shutak as an example), and that the injury she suffered was not "entirely different in character" from what would be expected from the defendant's failure to keep the door in good condition (citing Martinez).

The court considered and distinguished Green v New York City Housing Authority, noting that in Green the tenant's deliberate placement of the broken door unbraced against a wall was the cause of the infant's injury and therefore the injury there was not a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. By contrast, the court here concluded a jury could reasonably find that Katherine's attempt to repair the door was foreseeable and therefore not a superseding cause.

Because factual issues remained for a jury (citing McCann), the court held that summary judgment on proximate cause was inappropriate.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The judgment below is reversed on the law, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Implications: The direct consequence of the decision is that the plaintiffs' complaint is revived and the issue of proximate cause (including whether the plaintiff's conduct was a superseding intervening act) must be resolved by a jury. The opinion does not announce any broader legal rule beyond applying existing precedent on foreseeability and superseding causes; it resolves the motion for summary judgment by identifying triable factual issues rather than establishing new precedent.

Show full summary ...

KATHERINE JACKSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff Katherine Jackson (hereinafter Katherine) was injured when she and her young granddaughter attempted to rehang a 50-pound sliding closet door on its track in her apartment. The door slipped out of their hands and fell on Katherine's foot. The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages and alleged, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the door. According to the plaintiffs, the closet door had been broken for several years, and the defendant had been notified of this condition. The defendant moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of proximate cause and contended that Katherine's intervening act of dropping the closet door broke the causal connection between its negligent conduct and her injury.

An intervening act may be a superseding act which breaks the causal connection if it is extraordinary, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or far removed from the defendant's conduct (see, Kriz v Schum, 75 N.Y.2d 25, 36; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 315). "[W]hether an act is foreseeable and the course of events normal are questions which are generally subject to varying inferences presenting issues for the fact finder to resolve" (Lynch v Bay Ridge Obstetrical Gynecological Assocs., 72 N.Y.2d 632, 636, citing Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., supra). Stated succinctly, "an intervening act which is a normal consequence of the situation created by a defendant cannot constitute a superseding cause absolving the defendant from liability" (Lynch v Bay Ridge Obstetrical Gynecological Assocs., supra, at 636-637).

The evidence in the record presents a triable issue of fact as to whether Katherine's actions were a normal consequence of the defendant's failure to repair the closet door. It was foreseeable that Katherine would attempt to repair the condition which the defendant had neglected to correct for a prolonged period of time (see, e.g., Shutak v Handler, 190 A.D.2d 345), and the injury she suffered was not "entirely different in character" from that which would be expected to result from the defendant's failure to keep the closet door in good condition (cf., Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 N.Y.2d 819, 820). Although the defendant contends that Green v New York City Hous. Auth. ( 82 A.D.2d 780, affd 55 N.Y.2d 966), is controlling, the facts in that case are distinguishable. In Green, the tenant had placed a broken bedroom door, unbraced, against a wall, and several days later the door fell on her infant, who was not yet two years old, as he played near it. The court concluded that the mother's act of placing the door against the wall was the cause of the accident. Thus, in Green, the injury to the child was not a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence, whereas in this case a jury could reasonably find that the injury to Katherine was a foreseeable consequence of her attempt to repair the door.

Since there are issues of fact in this case which should be resolved by a jury (see, e.g., McCann v City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 668), the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint is reinstated. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

JACKSON v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY