You are here: / / Adult Care Facility, in Which Residents Have a High Level of Autonomy,...

Adult Care Facility, in Which Residents Have a High Level of Autonomy, Can Not Be Held Liable for Assault by One Resident Upon Another

In finding that Lakeside, an adult care facility (ACF), was not liable for an assault by a resident, Fierro, upon the plaintiff (also a resident), the Second Department wrote:

…[C]ourts have imposed a duty of care where “there exist special circumstances in which there is sufficient authority and ability to control the conduct of third persons that [courts] have identified a duty to do so. Thus, [courts] have imposed a duty to control the conduct of others where there is a special relationship: a relationship between defendant and [the] third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require [one] defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

…Lakeside [presented evidence that its] residents were free to come and go as they pleased, and that in order to remove a resident from the facility, it would need to commence an eviction proceeding. Because it is an ACF, Lakeside’s control over Fierro, “and consequent duty to prevent him from harming others, is more limited than in cases involving persons confined to mental institutions” …. Lakeside did not require the issuance of day passes, which would have been indicative of “a certain level of authority and control” over its residents …, who did not “relinquish general autonomy” … .  Malave v Lakeside Manor Homes for Adults, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02547, 2012-00696, Index No 100904/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13​

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

 

You might also like
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE FAILED TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE INJURY CAUSED BY TREE FALLING IN ROADWAY.
IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE THE TOTTEN TRUSTS SO THE FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER WISHES AS SET OUT IN THE WILL AND TRUST DRAFTED BY DEFENDANTS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).
Setback Dimensions Drawn on Subdivision Map Not Reflected in Documents in Defendants’ Chain of Title/Setback Restrictions, Therefore, Did Not Run With the Land
Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction and Did Not Justify Finding that New York Was an Inconvenient Forum
THE JUDGE GRANTED FATHER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ATTORNEY’S FEES) WITHOUT AFFORDING MOTHER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD; THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S MOTION AFTER DECIDING TO GRANT MOTHER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

Question of Fact About Whether Emergency Doctrine Excused Police Officer’s... Question of Fact Raised About Whether School-Wrestler’s Risk of Injury Increased...