You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANTS WERE SEEKING TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S DIALYSIS TREATMENT BASED UPON SHARPLY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the the temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant dialysis provider from stopping plaintiff’s treatment should not have been vacated and plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction should have been denied without a hearing. The dialysis provider, Avantus, wanted to discontinue treatment because of plaintiff’s behavior. However the evidence of plaintiff’s behavior was sharply conflicting:

… [T]he motion court had found that Avantus had not produced evidence showing that it had complied with any of the federal procedural requirements for terminating a patient’s care. Defendants had not presented any new evidence that it had done so before the court issued the order presently on appeal. Indeed, the court did not address the merits of defendants’ decision to terminate plaintiff’s care at all. Accordingly, the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing.

The motion court also improperly vacated the TRO without a hearing. Plaintiff’s showing that he would be irreparably injured in the absence of a TRO never changed. The court was presented with no evidence inconsistent with its finding in issuing the TRO that “there is no dispute that dialysis is a life-saving measure which plaintiff sorely needs, and at this stage of the litigation, the defendants have not established that the reasons for plaintiff’s discharge from the facility outweigh the risks that discharge would carry with regard to plaintiff’s health.”

In addition, although the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the TRO, the parties presented sharply divergent facts on that issue, which could not be resolved without a hearing. Wilder v Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06054, First Dept 8-7-19

 

You might also like
Mutual Mistake.
THE TRIAL JUDGE COMPLETELY BYPASSED THE BATSON PROCEDURE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO FOUR JURORS; ALTHOUGH THE JURORS HAD BEEN EXCUSED, THE BATSON OBJECTION WAS TIMELY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; CONVICTION HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Redaction of Information Which Could Possibly Endanger Witnesses in a Homicide Investigation Is Required
Dissolved Corporation Amenable to Suit Under New Jersey Law/Substitute Service Upon Insurer of Dissolved Corporation Proper
Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness to Demonstrate Motivation and Bias
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER...