You are here: / REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER...

Search Results

/

REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was properly granted. The driver of the rear vehicle must take weather conditions into account when following another car. The emergency doctrine is not available because the driver was aware of the weather conditions. An allegation that the plaintiff’s car stopped suddenly is not enough to rebut the presumption of negligence:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability by establishing that defendant Angel Sanchez, the driver of defendant Basics Development Group’s vehicle, was negligent.

Although plaintiff came to a sudden stop and defendants contend that icy road conditions that day provide a valid, non-negligent explanation for why the accident occurred (i.e., that Sanchez’s car skidded), a driver is expected to maintain enough distance between himself and cars ahead of him so as to avoid collisions with stopped vehicles, taking into account weather and road conditions … . Furthermore, defendants’ reliance on the emergency doctrine is misplaced, since that defense is unavailable where, as here, defendant driver was aware of inclement weather conditions and should have properly accounted for them … .

Defendants’ alternative argument, that plaintiff stopped suddenly, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of Sanchez’s negligence … . Matos v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01306, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

/ , , ,

WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the trial court should not have applied the collateral estoppel doctrine to preclude the People from introducing evidence the defendant used a firearm to threaten the robbery victim. The grand jury dismissed the robbery first count and indicted on robbery third. The trial court reasoned that the grand jury necessarily found the defendant did not have a weapon by refusing to indict on robbery first. The First Department held: (1) the article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition (brought by the People against the trial judge) was the appropriate remedy; and (2) the trial judge is prohibited from enforcing the order precluding evidence of the defendant’s possession of a weapon:

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, only available to prevent a court from either acting without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it otherwise has jurisdiction … . Prohibition is not available to review mere errors of law, even when the errors are truly egregious … .

“Although the distinction between legal errors and actions made in excess of authority is not always easily made, abuses of power may be identified by their impact on the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself” … . The trial court’s ruling in this case was an error that affected the entire proceeding and thus constituted an excess of the court’s authority. The ruling prevents the People from proving the element of force required under third degree robbery because the gun was the only evidence of force that was presented to the grand jury. The People cannot present different facts at trial in support of the indictment … . Although the court did not actually dismiss the third degree robbery charge, the charge cannot withstand a claim of legal insufficiency, because there are no other facts on which the prosecution can rely to prove force, a necessary element of the charge. * * *

A writ of prohibition will lie where a trial court’s erroneous ruling affects the proceeding in a conclusive manner, by terminating the case … . At bar, although the ruling did not actually terminate the case, it effectively terminated the ability of the People to prosecute the highest count in the indictment … . We therefore find that the court’s ruling is reviewable by way of a writ of prohibition. * * *

The Court of Appeals has recognized … that for policy reasons collateral estoppel is not as liberally applied in criminal prosecutions as in civil actions … . The rigid application of collateral estoppel must yield to society’s preeminent and overwhelming interest in ensuring the correctness of determinations of guilt or innocence … . “Thus, if … collateral estoppel ‘cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied'” … . Matter of Clark v Newbauer, 2017 NY Slip Op 01326, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/PROHIBITION (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE)

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED.

The First Department determined the insurer’s (National Specialty’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied. The insurance policy excluded water-related damage. There was no question that the building housing plaintiff’s (Pastabar’s) refrigeration equipment was flooded during Hurricane Sandy. However, plaintiff alleged damage to the refrigeration equipment was caused by an electrical short when the electricity was turned on a month after the storm. The affidavit from the insurer’s expert did not refute plaintiff’s allegation:

In compliance with its obligations under its lease, Pastabar had bought a commercial package policy containing commercial general liability and property damage coverage from defendant National Specialty. * * *

National Specialty failed to establish prima facie that all of Pastabar’s claimed losses were caused by flood waters resulting from Hurricane Sandy … , and were thus within the insurance policy exclusion for water and floods. Based on photographs that Pastabar received from an unidentified neighbor, National Specialty’s expert made a finding concerning the exterior water level at the premises … . However, the expert never inspected the site or the electrical wiring. Therefore, the expert could not refute testimony by Pastabar’s manager that Pastabar suffered additional damage a month after the storm, when electricity was restored and caused “the melting of wires and burning of . . . most of the equipment.” Thus, the expert’s report never rose above the level of speculation … . Pastabar Café Corp. v 343 E. 8th St. Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01305, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)/HURRICANE SANDY (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS FLOODED DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE INSURER’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT REFUTE THE ALLEGATION THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY AN ELECTRICAL SHORT A MONTH AFTER THE STORM WHEN ELECTRICITY WAS RESTORED)

/ ,

MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.

The First Department determined the defendant’s statement that he lived in the apartment which was searched and where contraband was found did not require Miranda warnings or a 710.30 notice:

Neither Miranda warnings nor CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice was required with respect to defendant’s statement, in response to a detective’s pedigree question, that his residence was the apartment where the police had executed a search warrant and discovered contraband. The detective’s routine administrative questioning was not designed to elicit an incriminating response … , even if the answer was reasonably likely to be incriminating … . People v Martin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01309, 1st Dep 2-21-17

 

/ ,

FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the February 5th statement, as well as the first portion of the July 11th videotaped statement by the defendant, despite the suppression of statements made five or six hours earlier on July 11. The videotaped statement was deemed sufficiently attenuated from the inadmissible statements:

Defendant’s videotaped statement was made approximately five hours after the initial Miranda violation. Much shorter breaks have been found sufficient to dissipate the taint of a Miranda violation … . In addition, “defendant had demonstrated an unqualified desire to speak” … , seemed alert and relaxed in the video, and did not appear nervous or intimidated. Indeed, he was even “laughing on occasion.”

Defendant had been Mirandized after his first encounter with the police concerning the case, on February 5. Further, the ADA — who had not participated in the earlier interrogation — was the sole questioner in the admitted portion of the video. Although two of the detectives who had conducted the earlier interrogation were present, they did not participate in the questioning in the admitted segment. Notably, the court suppressed any references to the suppressed statements made earlier on July 11th, as well as the later portion of the video in which the detectives participated in questioning … . People v Richardson, 2017 NY Slip Op 01304, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/MIRANDA VIOLATION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)

/ , , ,

MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendants in this personal injury case did not demonstrate a need for plaintiff’s mental health, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and HIV-related medical records. Supreme Court properly issued a protective order to that effect:

Defendants did not meet their burden of showing a “compelling need” for medical records concerning HIV; they failed to submit evidence that would establish a connection between plaintiff’s claimed HIV status and her future enjoyment of life (Public Health Law § 2785[2][a]…). Similarly, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that “the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality” such to permit discovery of mental health, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse records (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c][1]; Mental Hygiene Law § 22.05 [b] …).

As the dissent notes, as a rule, “all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” should be fully disclosed (CPLR 3101[a] …). However, plaintiff’s alleged general anxiety and mental anguish from back and leg injuries do not place her entire mental and physical health into contention … . She has not, as argued by the dissent, waived any protection applicable to such records. James v 1620 Westchester Ave. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01303, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/MEDICAL RECORDS (MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/HIV (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/MENTAL HEALTH (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/SUBSTANCE ABUSE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/ALCOHOL ABUSE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL RECORDS, MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE)

/

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff was not injured on a construction site. Plaintiff was not where the construction was being done, but was on a “temporary facility” (Bronx Yard) preparing rebar for the construction site:

Collavino [superstructure concrete contractor], subcontracted by Lend Lease [property owner], which was hired by 56 Leonard [construction manager], was responsible for furnishing “[a]ll temporary Project site facilities” and agreed “to place its Temporary Facilities in locations designated by Owner or Construction Manager.” Additionally, the Temporary License for the Bronx Yard was secured solely by Collavino, and for the purpose of completing work to be “forwarded directly to a construction site in Manhattan.”  Gerrish v 56 Leonard LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01262, 1st Dept 2-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONSTRUCTION SITE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

NYC WATER BOARD’S ONE-TIME CREDIT TO CLASS 1 PROPERTY OWNERS COUPLED WITH A 2.1% RATE INCREASE DID NOT HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED AND VACATED.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the NYC Water Board’s issuance of a one-time credit of $183 to Class 1 property owners coupled with a 2.1% increase in NYC water rates was not supported by a rational basis. Class 1 property owners are owners of one, two and three family residences:

Although the Water Board claims that the credit would be more financially meaningful for class one property owners, the credit is not in any way tied to financial need. There is no rational basis for the conclusion that class one ratepayers have traditionally borne a disproportionate burden of water and sewage fees. While the Water Board argues that some members of class one rate payers experience financial hardship in paying for water, the application of the credit does not in any manner take into consideration an owner’s ability to pay or customers’ need for this benefit, solely relying on the classification of the property for tax purposes, which bears little relation to the stated objective. …

The Water Board’s justification for the increase as necessary to ensure funding for the costs of repairing or replacing existing portions of the City’s water and sewer system, while consistent with its mission statement and statutory mandate, is irreconcilable with the Water Board’s implementation of a credit if, the Water Board still needed funds to balance its books for the year. The action seems inconsistent with the Water Board’s statutory mandate to make the water system self sustaining. Matter of Prometheus Realty Corp. v New York City Water Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 01263, 1st Dept 2-16-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (NYC WATER BOARD’S ONE-TIME CREDIT TO CLASS 1 PROPERTY OWNERS COUPLED WITH A 2.1% RATE INCREASE DID NOT HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED AND VACATED)/WATER BOARD (NYC) (NYC WATER BOARD’S ONE-TIME CREDIT TO CLASS 1 PROPERTY OWNERS COUPLED WITH A 2.1% RATE INCREASE DID NOT HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED AND VACATED)/WATER RATES (NYC) (NYC WATER BOARD’S ONE-TIME CREDIT TO CLASS 1 PROPERTY OWNERS COUPLED WITH A 2.1% RATE INCREASE DID NOT HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS AND WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED AND VACATED)

/

UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using a hand propelled wheeled container containing 500 to 800 pounds of construction debris when, it is alleged, one of the wheels allegedly stopped turning intermittently. When plaintiff pulled hard the container came to rest on his foot. The Industrial Code requires such containers to have “free-running” wheels:

Plaintiff testified that immediately before the alleged accident, he struggled to move the mini-container after the wheel apparently became stuck, and that as a result, he was injured when the mini-container rolled onto his foot when he forcefully pulled it in an attempt to move it. This uncontradicted testimony presents a question of fact on whether the wheels on the mini-container were “free-running” as required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.28(b) … . Ahern v NYU Langone Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 01264, 1st Dept 2-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION)

/

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility, JCAP, owed no duty of care to plaintiff who was assaulted by Velentzas, who had just been dismissed from the treatment program for violation of the program’s rules. The facility’s  motion for summary judgment, therefore, should have been granted:

JCAP had some control or authority over its residents while they remained participants of the program. But, JCAP residents could leave the facility and terminate their participation in the program against medical advice. Although voluntary departure from the program would trigger adverse legal consequences — namely, dismissal from the TASC program and potential prosecution in criminal court for the charges against them — residents could leave at any time. In short, facilities like JCAP cannot force a participant to remain on the premises. These facilities are not prisons; JCAP’s control over Velentzas was, “in fact entirely dependent upon [his] willingness to comply with and carry out” its directives … . In the absence of the authority to prevent a participant from leaving, it follows that, when a participant is discharged from JCAP for violating facility rules, or withdraws from the program, he or she is no longer under the facility’s control. Oddo v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01256, CtApp 2-16-17

NEGLGENCE (SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/DUTY (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)/DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY (NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A RESIDENT SHORTLY AFTER THE RESIDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM THE TREATMENT PROGRAM)

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