You are here: / / Doctor Who Allegedly Wrongfully Prescribed Narcotics for a Drug Addict...

Doctor Who Allegedly Wrongfully Prescribed Narcotics for a Drug Addict Who Shot Plaintiff’s Decedent in an Attempt to Steal Narcotics from a Pharmacy Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

The Second Department determined the duty to protect persons from the criminal acts of others did not extend to plaintiff’s decedent.  Plaintiff sued a doctor who operated a pain management clinic, alleging that the doctor operated a “pill mill” and wrongfully provided drugs to a drug addict,  The drug addict shot plaintiff’s decedent during a robbery of a drug store in an attempt to steal narcotics. The court noted that there are situations in which a defendant exercises sufficient control to prevent harm to others. Here, however, in the absence of such control, the doctor owed no duty of care to plaintiff’s decedent:

“The question of whether a defendant owes a duty of care to another person is a question of law for the courts” … .

Generally, “[w]ithout a duty running directly to the injured person there can be no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm” … . Further, “there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others,’ even where, as a practical matter, the defendant could have exercised such control” … .

… Courts 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 exercise such control … . Thus, courts have imposed a duty to control the conduct of others “where there is a special relationship: a relationship between [the] defendant and [the] third person whose actions expose [the] plaintiff to harm such as would require [the] defendant to protect the plaintiff from the conduct of others” … .

The Supreme Court erred in denying [the doctor’s] motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to state a cause of action. [The doctor] did not owe a duty to the decedent or to the general public because no special circumstances existed. The decedent was a stranger to [the shooter] and a member of the general public, not a member of “a determinate and identified class” … . Malone v County of Suffolk, 2015 NY Slip Op 03811, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE CHILD IN THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT AND ABUSE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) COMPONENT OF TOWN’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT PROPERLY ADOPTED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT).
OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED BY THE FILING OF SIMILAR ACTIONS ALLEGING THE UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES TO HOME HEALTH AIDES (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CONTEXT DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BUT COULD NOT AFFORD ONE; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TOLD FATHER HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson” Challenge Alleging the Prosecutor’s Exclusion of Jurors on the Basis of Race

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

Nothing in the Documentation Submitted to the Lender Raised Any Questions About... Bar Patron Was Beaten to Death by Other Patrons—Defendants (Bar and Premises...