You are here: / / LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF...

LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED, HEARING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s lawsuit should not have been dismissed on the ground he was severely mentally retarded. Plaintiff had not been judicially declared incompetent. Supreme Court should have held a hearing about the appointment of a guardian ad litem to aid plaintiff:

​

The plaintiff, who has never been judicially declared incompetent, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. By way of background information, he alleged, inter alia, that he previously had been diagnosed as “severely mentally retarded,” that he receives ongoing medical and psychiatric treatment at a residential facility for the developmentally disabled, and that he is entirely dependent on others for his care. Based on these allegations, the defendants separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue. The Supreme Court granted the motions.

An individual who is of unsound mind, but who has not been judicially declared incompetent, may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person… . Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in directing summary dismissal of the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of mental capacity. Rather, since the plaintiff may require the assistance of a guardian ad litem to protect his interests, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether a guardian should be appointed for the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 1201 … . Piggott v Lifespire, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02686, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED, HEARING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD)/MENTAL RETARDATION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED, HEARING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD)/GUARDIANS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MENTAL RETARDATION, AWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED, HEARING ABOUT APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD)

You might also like
Lateness Not a Barrier to Motion to Amend Pleadings/Addition of Wrongful Death Cause of Action Allowed; No Prejudice to Defendant
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE POSSESSION ACTION AND THE LACHES DEFENSE, THE ACTION INVOLVED LAND THAT WAS ONCE UNDER WATER CREATED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SAND DURING STORMS DECADES AGO (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Drug Treatment and Drug Testing Facilities Do Not Have a Duty to Provide the Test Results With a Disclaimer Indicating the Tests Were Done According to “Clinical,” Not “Forensic,” Standards—Here the “Clinical” Results Were Disseminated and Used In Court Proceedings
DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Exclusion from Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Related Coverage Limitations In Policy Issued in Ohio Not Valid in New York
Failure to Allege Specific Facts to Rebut Process Server Affidavit Required Denial of Motion to Vacate Judgment w/o Hearing

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE... HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL...