You are here: / / DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY CAN BE SUED FOR WRONGFUL...
,

DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY CAN BE SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER THE EPTL, BOTH FOR THE STABBING DEATH OF HIS MOTHER AND THE RELATED SUICIDE OF HIS BROTHER.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity in connection with the stabbing of his mother did not preclude wrongful death claims against him pursuant to EPTL 5-4.1, both for the death of his mother and the related suicide of his brother:

Although defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in connection with the stabbing death of his mother, the complaint stated a viable wrongful death claim against him pursuant to EPTL 5-4.1, since an insane person may be liable in tort for his actions … . A wrongful death claim was also stated on behalf of defendant’s brother, who committed suicide after his mother’s murder. Rosen v Schwartz, 2017 NY Slip Op 02517, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

You might also like
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INVENTORY LIST WAS CREATED FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH WAS A VALID “INVENTORY SEARCH” (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF TWO BUILDINGS AS PART OF A PROTECTED LANDMARK HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THE TWO BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT CONDOMINIUMS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE.
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY.

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

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED... BUILDING AND HOME INSPECTORS WERE EMPLOYEES OF ENGINEERING FIRM.