You are here: / / NO ONE AT THE DEFENDANT HEALTH CLUB WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERED...

NO ONE AT THE DEFENDANT HEALTH CLUB WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK WAS CERTIFIED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AID AND THE EMPLOYEE DELAYED CALLING 911; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant health club for failing to aid plaintiff’s decedent when she had a heart attack at the club. The only club employee on duty, Higgins, was not certified to provide emergency aid and delayed calling 911:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the common-law negligence cause of action to the extent of granting partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ breach of their limited duty of care to render aid to patrons struck down by heart attack or cardiac arrest. In Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc. (20 NY3d 342), the Court of Appeals recognized that “New York courts have viewed health clubs as owing a limited duty of care to patrons struck down by a heart attack or cardiac arrest while engaged in athletic activities on premises” (id. at 350). The Court of Appeals has referred to this limited duty as the health club’s “common-law duty to render aid” (id. at 351 …). A health club fulfills this duty by, for example, calling 911 immediately, responding to the patron and performing CPR or other measures, or responding to the patron and then deferring to someone else with superior medical training … . Hamlin v PFNY, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00574. Second Dept 1-29-20

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT FELL ATTEMPTING TO MOVE FROM AN UPPER WALKWAY TO A LOWER WALKWAY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT DID NOT VIOLATE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.
FINDING THAT DENNIS T IS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WAS PROPER, EVIDENTIARY RULE ANALOGOUS TO RES IPSA LOQUITUR SUPPORTED THE ABUSE FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.

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

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DE... THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PRESENTING...