You are here: / DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal of the “lack of informed consent” cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the breast implants she received were not of the type and size she requested . The proof submitted by the defendants did not demonstrate the consent form at issued complied with the standard for disclosure in this context:

Although the defendants demonstrated that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based upon the size of the implants used, the defendants failed to establish that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based on the type of implants used. The consent forms signed by the plaintiff stated that she would be receiving “gel” implants, but did not identify the particular brand or manufacturer of the implants. Although the defendants’ expert averred that the operative report indicated that “Palaia explained the risks, benefits and alternatives to [the plaintiff] prior to the procedure,” and noted that consent forms were signed, he failed to aver that “the consent form complied with the prevailing standard for such disclosures applicable to reasonable practitioners performing the same kind of surgery” … . Whitnum v Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 05710, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INFORMED CONSENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant failed to make out a prima facie case warranting summary judgment. Plaintiff was injured playing basketball on defendant’s property when he fell on a flower pot which was near the post supporting the backboard. The evidence failed to eliminate a triable issue whether the placement of the flower pot unreasonably increased the inherent risks:

 

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred the plaintiff’s recovery. The evidence submitted by the defendants, including testimony as to the size and placement of the flowerpot in close proximity to the paved court, failed to eliminate a triable issue as to whether its placement unreasonably increased the inherent risks of the activity … . Moreover, contrary to their contention, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition … .  Simone v Doscas, 2016 NY Slip Op 05709, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BASKETBALL (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS.

The Second Department, in a case related to the two cases summarized immediately above, determined grandmother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing. Mother’s parental rights were terminated based upon mental illness and permanent neglect. The Second Department held that grandmother’s petition for custody should be part of the dispositional hearing in the mother’s parental rights proceedings:

A grandparent has standing to seek custody of a child pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 when the child is in foster care, and is generally entitled to a hearing … . While the grandmother was not entitled to an immediate hearing on her custody petition prior to the determination made at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in the termination proceedings against the mother … , the proper procedural course would have been for the Family Court to consider her custody petition in the context of a dispositional hearing in the underlying termination proceedings, wherein the court would determine the best interests of the child … . The grandmother did not testify at the fact-finding hearing or any of the permanency hearings held in relation to the termination proceedings against the mother, and was therefore never afforded the right to be heard on the issues … . Accordingly, the Family Court erred in failing to resolve the custody petition before freeing the child for adoption … . Matter of Weiss v Weiss, 2016 NY Slip Op 05717, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

FAMILY LAW (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)/CUSTODY (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)

/

GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION.

The Second Department, in a case related to the cases summarized immediately above and below, determined Family Court should not have dismissed grandmother’s petition for visitation on standing grounds without first conducting a hearing:

Where a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must undertake a two-part inquiry … . First, the court must determine whether the grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based on the death of a parent or equitable circumstances … . Where the court concludes that the grandparent has established standing, the court must then determine whether visitation with the grandparent is in the best interests of the child … . In determining whether equitable circumstances confer standing, the court must examine all relevant facts … . “[A]n essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,” including whether the grandparent has a meaningful relationship with the child … .

Here, the grandmother’s petition alleged the existence of a sufficient relationship with the child to confer standing upon her to seek visitation … . Further, the information before the Family Court was insufficient to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the standing issue, without a hearing … . Matter of Weiss v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 2016 NY Slip Op 05716, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

 

FAMILY LAW (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION)/VISITATION (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION)/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION)

/ ,

MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT.

The Second Department determined mother’s motion to vacate the dispositional portions of the orders terminating her parental rights based upon mental illness and permanent neglect should have been granted. Mother defaulted, but moved to vacate both the fact-finding a dispositional aspects of the orders:

Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the mother’s motion which was to vacate the dispositional portions of the orders of fact-finding and disposition. Although, in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights based on mental illness, a separate dispositional hearing is not necessarily required in every case … , the circumstances of this case were not such that a separate dispositional hearing was unwarranted … . Furthermore, in the case of permanent neglect, the Family Court may not dispense with a dispositional hearing in the absence of the consent of the parties … . Consequently, the mother was entitled to vacatur of the dispositional portions of the orders of fact-finding and disposition in the interest of justice … . Matter of Isabella R.W. (Jessica W.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05715, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT)/PARENTAL RIGHTS, TERMINATION OF (MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT)/PERMANENT NEGLECT (MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT)

/ ,

AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES. 

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent constituted merely “an agreement to agree” which could not support breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel or fraud causes of action:

 

The letter of intent provided that parties “shall negotiate to arrive at mutually acceptable Definitive Agreements” regarding the potential joint venture and loan. The letter of intent further provided that the parties “each reserve the right to withdraw from further negotiations at any time if, in the sole judgment of either or both, it is in either Party’s best interest to do so, without further liability or obligation to the other.” * * *

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, as documentary evidence, in the form of the letter of intent, utterly refuted the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law … . ” [I]t is rightfully well settled in the common law of contracts in this State that a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable'” … . Here, the letter of intent demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegations of breach of contract related to a mere agreement to agree … . Further, causes of action sounding in promissory estoppel and fraud require reasonable reliance on an alleged promise or misrepresentation … . Here, in light of the language of the letter of intent, any reliance on the defendants’ alleged promises and representations would, as a matter of law, have been unreasonable … . Finally, the language of the letter of intent utterly refuted the plaintiff’s allegations regarding an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing … . New York Military Academy v NewOpen Group, 2016 NY Slip Op 05706, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/AGREEMENT TO AGREE (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/LETTER OF INTENT (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)/FRAUD (AGREEMENT TO AGREE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND FRAUD THEORIES)

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.

The Second Department determined summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should not have been awarded to plaintiff. Although plaintiff had made out a prima facie case against defendant YAM, the motion was premature in that plaintiff had not yet been deposed:

… [T]he plaintiff made a prima facie showing that YAM failed to provide him with adequate safety devices, as required by Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation of the statute was a proximate cause of the accident … . The plaintiff also made a prima facie showing that he was injured while he was engaged in an activity covered under Labor Law § 241(6), that there was a violation of an applicable provision of the Industrial Code, and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident … .

Nonetheless, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against YAM was premature since there has been almost no discovery in the case and the plaintiff has not been deposed. In the absence of such discovery, YAM’s ability to defend is impaired, since it is limited to the plaintiff’s own unchallenged account of the accident, set forth in the affidavit he submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment, and YAM has not had an opportunity to explore potential defenses … . Churaman v C&B Elec., Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05703, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)

/

LICENSED CREATIVE ARTS THERAPIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined that claimant, a licensed creative arts therapist, was an employee of CompassionNet, which provides home care to sick and terminally ill children:

… [T]he record evidence demonstrates, that while claimant was not required to undergo any training, she submitted a résumé and went through an interview process that was several hours in duration. Upon being selected for placement on a panel of therapists, claimant signed an agreement identifying her as an independent contractor; however, that agreement required claimant to adhere to policies established by CompassionNet and prohibited her from employing or subcontracting another therapist in her place without the prior written consent of CompassionNet. A schedule attached to the agreement unilaterally established the fees that clients would be charged for claimant’s services and the amounts that she would be reimbursed for her travel expenses, including parking and tolls. Although claimant could decline a particular assignment, the agreement provided that, upon being assigned, a case manager would establish the visit frequency and the duration and time of day that claimant would provide her services, and required claimant to submit documentation to CompassionNet within 72 hours of providing services and invoices in a predetermined format at least monthly. To that end, claimant was paid for her services regardless of whether CompassionNet received payment from, or on behalf of, the client. While CompassionNet required claimant to maintain her own professional liability insurance, claimant explained that she was never self-employed as a creative arts therapist and that she did not provide her services for any other entity during the time period in question. Matter of Kliman (Genesee Region Home Care Assn., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 05680, 3rd Dept 7-28-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (LICENSED CREATIVE ARTS THERAPIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS)

/ ,

PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the petitioners’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should have been granted. Petitioner was using a bicycle provided by New York City’s Citi Bike program when he struck a wheel stop and flipped over, injuring his head. In a federal diversity action stemming from the same incident, the city asserted an affirmative defense based upon petitioner’s failure to wear a helmet. Petitioner, in the federal action, was allowed thereafter to assert a negligence claim against the city based upon the city’s failure to rent helmets. Petitioner, in the state action, then sought both to amend the notice of claim and to file a late notice of claim to reflect the helmet allegation, as well as a negligent design allegation (re: placement of the wheel stop). The motion to amend was rejected by the First Department but the motion to file a late notice (General Municipal Law 50-3 (5)) was granted:

Here, to the extent that the allegations concerning the design of the station differ between the original notice of claim and the proposed amended notice of claim, the City unquestionably had actual notice of the claims in the latter document, based on the original notice of claim. Further, it was not prejudiced by petitioner’s amplification of the claims in the proposed amended notice, since the alleged defect was not transitory in nature … . * * *

We note that petitioner’s failure to use a helmet is akin to a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt in a motor vehicle case. It is well settled that any such failure does not go to comparative liability but rather to how damages, if any, should be assessed … . Further, the City bears the burden of proving that some or all of petitioner’s injuries would not have been received had he used a helmet … . Accordingly, petitioners had no reason to make a claim concerning the lack of helmets until the City raised the issue. Additionally, * * * the City cannot claim to be prejudiced where it chose to inject a mitigation defense into the federal action, and petitioners are merely trying to ensure that their notice of claim supports their effort to rebut that defense … . Matter of Corwin v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 7-28-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE AMENDED, A LATE NOTICE ASSERTING A NEW THEORY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)/BICYCLISTS (FAILURE TO WEAR A HELMET GOES TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/HELMETS (BICYCLISTS, FAILURE TO WEAR A HELMET GOES TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

/ ,

CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Gische, determined the board of managers of a condominium was liable under the Labor Law for plaintiff’s elevation-related injury in a common area (the boiler room), not the sponsor which still owned several unsold condominium units:

While defendant 41 West 72 LLC acquired the building in question by a deed recorded in January 2001, several months later, in August 2001, 41 West 72 LLC made the building subject to the Condominium Act (Real Property Law, article 9-B) by executing and filing a declaration of condominium pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-f … . The declaration defines the common elements of the condominium (Real Property Law § 339-e[2]) to include the building’s boiler room. As a common element of the condominium, the boiler room was, at the time of plaintiff’s accident, owned collectively by all of the owners of the building’s 130 units … . However, the conversion of the building to a condominium placed its common elements “solely under the control of the [condominium’s] board of managers” pursuant to the Condominium Act, which “recogni[zes] that the board exercises exclusive control over the common elements” … . Jerdonek v 41 W. 72 LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05666, 1st Dept 7-28-16

LABOR LAW (CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUMS, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/CONDOMINIUMS (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/BOARD OF MANAGERS (CONDOMINIUMS, LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)

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