You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD EXERCISED THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEGUN EXERCISING HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE PEOPLE TO BELATEDLY MAKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
DENIAL OF TEACHER’S APPEAL OF UNSATISFACTORY RATING ANNULLED. 
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY FOURTH AND FIFTH DEGREE ARE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THIRD DEGREE; UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay

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

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION MONTHS... PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE...