You are here: / / DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT...
,

DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT DAMAGES FOR “PRE-IMPACT TERROR” ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MED MAL CASE; HERE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK IN 2008 AND DIED IN 2011 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in the med mal case, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the damages for “pre-impact terror” were not appropriate. Plaintiff suffered a heart attack in 2008 and died in 2011:

… [P]re-impact terror delineated as emotional pain and suffering as a separate item of damages is inappropriate in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action and would represent an inappropriate extension of the law with respect to this issue. Traditionally, damages for pre-impact terror have been awarded in cases involving motor vehicle accidents and other types of accidents … . Here, where the “impact” was the decedent’s heart attack, the damages for emotional pain and suffering cannot accurately be characterized as damages for pre-impact terror, because they were intended to compensate for the fear the decedent experienced after the heart attack occurred in January 2008 at Westchester Medical Center until his death more than three years later on October 27, 2011, at Yale-New Haven Hospital. Further, unlike a motor vehicle accident where the defendant driver causes the impact, the WMC defendants did not cause the decedent’s heart attack. To the extent that the Appellate Division, First Department, determined otherwise in Small v City of New York (213 AD3d 475), we decline to follow that decision. Molina v Goldberg, 2024 NY Slip Op 03818, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Disagreeing with the First Department, the Second Department held damages for “pre-impact terror” are not appropriate in the med mal case.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES LISTED IN THE RPAPL 1304 WERE DESIGNATED BY THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION OF TWO DRUGS TO SAMUEL D, A MENTALLY ILL PERSON, OVER SAMUEL D’S OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed
IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT (CVA) ACTION, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT RECRUITMENT AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (BBBS) AND FAMILY SERVICES OF WESTCHESTER (FSW) BASED ON THE ALLEGED SEXUAL CONDUCT BY A VOLUNTEER MENTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
Failure to Raise Denial of Constitutional Right to Present a Complete Defense Precluded Appeal
Health Service Provider’s Action to Recoup Overpayment of a Surcharge Subject to Six-Year Statute of Limitations
AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND 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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PRECLUDED... THE CHILD DID NOT WANT PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION...