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
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INSURER (WHICH PAID PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR LOSSES) AS A PLAINTIFF UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FOR AN INDEPENDENT SUBROGATION ACTION) (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO A WARRANT APPLICATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE, YOUTUBE VIDEO NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (FIRST DEPT).
A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED WHERE THE DESIGNATED ADOPTIVE PARENT DECLINES TO ADOPT AND THE BIRTH PARENT PROMPTLY APPLIES FOR REVOCATION OF THE JUDICIAL SURRENDER (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).
8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE NOT “REDLINED” (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 © 2026 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...