You are here: / / HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS...
,

HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE.

The Second Department determined defendant hospital (HHC) was entitled to summary judgment in an action stemming from injuries caused by a mentally ill patient after discharge from defendant hospital. The patient, four days after discharge, attacked and stabbed employees of the residential facility where the patient resided. The hospital medical records supported the conclusion the patient did not qualify for involuntary psychiatric observation at the time of his release. The plaintiff's expert's opposing affidavit was conclusory and speculative:

“[D]octors or a governmental subdivision of the State that employs them cannot be held responsible for damages resulting from the actions of a psychiatric patient who has been released when the patient's release is a matter of professional judgment” … . For liability to attach, it must be shown that the decision to release the patient was “something less than a professional medical determination” founded upon careful examination of the patient … . “Evidence of a difference of opinion among experts does not provide an adequate basis for a prima facie case of malpractice” … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted an expert affirmation opining that HHC deviated from accepted standards of medical practice and failed to make a careful examination by failing to contact [the patient's] psychiatric providers … and his … caseworker to inquire as to his condition and history of violence before making the determination whether to discharge him, and that those deviations proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries. However, the expert failed to explain what, if any, information HHC did not already have which those parties could have provided, and which would have been necessary for a careful examination of whether [the patient] continued to meet the legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric observation, care, and treatment. The expert also failed to address the evidence that [the patient] did not meet the criteria for involuntary psychiatric observation, care, and treatment at the time of his discharge … . Stephen v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01827, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY MENTALLY ILL PATIENT FOUR DAYS AFTER DISCHARGE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY DRUGS, NOT ALCOHOL; DIRECTION TO INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES INVOLVING ALCOHOL (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER’S VAN WAS NOT UNUSUAL OR VIOLENT, THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Assumption of Risk Extends to Construction of Baseball Field
FAILURE TO TAKE TIMELY STEPS TO SETTLE THE ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERED THE ACTION ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the Default Pursuant to CPLR 317
THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DOCTOR CONDUCTED AN ADEQUATE SUICIDE ASS... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A...