You are here: / SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE...

Search Results

/ ,

SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant oncologist, Khulpateea, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the “continuous treatment doctrine” did not apply to extend the statute. Plaintiff's decedent saw Khulpateea several times, after referral from decedent's gynecologist, and Khulpateea performed surgical procedures on decedent. It was only the last procedure which discovered the cancer. Each procedure was deemed to constitute a discrete event which did not anticipate ongoing treatment by Khulpateea:

“To establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applies, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate that there was a course of treatment, that it was continuous, and that it was in respect to the same condition or complaint underlying the claim of malpractice'” … . “Continuity of treatment is often found to exist when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient as manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during th[e] last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments which characterized the treatment in the immediate past'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show that there was a continuous course of treatment. The diagnostic services performed by Khulpateea were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing that the decedent and Khulpateea contemplated further treatment after the follow-up visit … . The decedent did not schedule another appointment with Khulpateea until she returned to see him in 2005, and she only did so then because [her gynecologist] referred her to him … . Nisanov v Khulpateea, 2016 NY Slip Op 02062, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

/

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall was trivial as a matter of law. The defendants submitted insufficient or conflicting evidence of the dimensions of the defect and the photographs were not dispositive:

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact” … . In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” … .

In support of its motion, [one of the defendants] failed to submit any measurements of the dimensions of the alleged defective condition.  * * *

… [The other defendant] submitted conflicting evidence as to the dimensions of the alleged defective condition, including the plaintiff's testimony at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and measurements performed by its expert, and it is impossible to ascertain from the photographs submitted in support of the motion whether the alleged defective condition was trivial as a matter of law … . Padarat v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 02064, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff limited liability company's failure to comply with the publication requirement of Limited Liability Company Law 2016[a] precluded the company from bringing the action:

Limited Liability Company Law § 206 requires limited liability companies to publish their articles of organization or comparable specified information for six successive weeks in two local newspapers designated by the clerk of the county where the limited liability company has its principal office, followed by the filing of an affidavit with the Department of State, stating that such publication has been completed … . Failure to comply with these requirements precludes a limited liability company from maintaining any action or special proceeding in New York … . Here, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the publication requirements of Limited Liability Company Law § 206, it is precluded from bringing this action … . Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Bldrs., L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 02071, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

LIMITWED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)/PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)

/

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to payment under his supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage. The SUM covered loss up to $100,000. The plaintiff recovered $100,000 from the other driver's insurance. Therefore nothing was due under the SUM provision of plaintiff's policy:

The SUM endorsement contained in the plaintiff's automobile insurance policy contained coverage limits of $100,000 per person, and further provided, in pertinent part, that “[t]he maximum amount payable under SUM coverage shall be the policy's SUM limits, reduced and thus offset by motor vehicle bodily injury liability insurance policy or bond payments received from, or on behalf of, any negligent party involved in the accident.” Although the plaintiff's SUM coverage was triggered … , the plaintiff received $100,000 from the tortfeasor, which is equal to the limit of the SUM coverage that he purchased. Consequently, the amount that he was entitled to recover under the automobile insurance policy's SUM coverage was reduced to zero … . Nafash v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02061, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)/SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY)

/

LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the complaint raised the reasonable possibility that plaintiff Cumberland Farms would be liable in a slip and fall case, even though the subject property had been leased to another. Therefore, Cumberland was entitled to summary judgment declaring the lessee's insurance carrier was obligated to defend Cumberland:

“A duty to defend is triggered by the allegations contained in the underlying complaint” … . “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . The duty remains “even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Nonetheless, “an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” … .

… [T]he complaint in the underlying action alleged that Cumberland was negligent in its ownership, operation, control, and maintenance of the subject gas station. However, the defendants' submissions in support of their motion included evidence that Cumberland leased the gas station to Noori as a franchisee. Since Cumberland's liability, if any, may hinge on the scope of its obligations under the agreements entered into with Noori that established their franchisor/franchisee relationship, the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage for Cumberland in the underlying action … . Cumberland Farms, Inc. v Tower Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02048, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)

/ ,

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment was properly granted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Attachment is a provisional remedy designed to secure a debt by preliminary levy upon the property of the debtor to conserve it for eventual execution, and the courts have strictly construed the attachment statute in favor of those against whom it may be employed … . In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a “plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … .  In addition to proving fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must show a probability of success on the merits … . Hume v 1 Prospect Park ALF, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02055, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/ATTACHMENT (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)

/ ,

SUIT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF AN ASSET OWNED NEARLY ENTIRELY BY BANKRUPT LEHMAN BROTHERS DISMISSED.

The First Department dismissed a complaint alleging, inter alia, breach of a limited partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty in connection of the sale of a fund (Archstone) nearly entirely owned by bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Plaintiff, who had purchased a 1% interest in the fund for $20 million, alleged the sale will generate enough to pay only the preferred interests and will “wipe out” the minority interests (including plaintiff). Plaintiff further alleged the sale was motivated by Lehman's desire to pay creditors relating to its 2008 bankruptcy. In dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the court explained the analytical criteria, including an “entire fairness” analysis:

Even under the heightened entire fairness standard advocated by plaintiff, the claim is insufficient. An “entire fairness” analysis focuses on two entwined considerations: fair dealing and fair price … . Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating the absence of fairness, or that it did not “receive the substantial equivalent in value of what [it] had before” … . Conclusory assertions that amounts paid were “unfair” are insufficient … . Plaintiff concedes that the $16 billion transaction price attained Archstone's current value at the time of the transaction. Plaintiff also admits that the transaction “represented a premium of approximately 15% over the implied purchase price of Lehman's combined acquisitions of the interests of the other [s]ponsor [b]anks' interests earlier in 2012.” Plaintiff identifies no alternative transactions, let alone one that would have achieved more value for the Fund. Fiduciaries are “not required to abandon [a] transaction simply because a better deal might have become available in the future” … . Cambridge Capital Real Estate Invs., LLC v Archstone Enter. LP, 2016 NY Slip Op 02017, 1st Dept 3-22-16

PARTNERSHIP LAW (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION BY MINORITY INTEREST HOLDER DISMISSED)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (PARTNERSHIP LAW, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION BY MINORITY INTEREST HOLDER DISMISSED)

/ ,

HEARSAY OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.

The First Department determined defendants, including defendant SSA, had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment in this slip and fall case, but the plaintiff raised a question of fact whether an identified defect in the sidewalk caused her fall. The court noted that hearsay evidence supplied in opposition to the motion was properly considered because it was not the only evidence submitted in opposition. The case is a rare example of each side submitting evidence of all the required “slip and fall” elements:

Defendants made a prima showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, by submitting deposition testimony and an affidavit from SSA's managing member stating that SSA never did any work on the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, that he never received complaints about the sidewalk or curb prior to plaintiff's accident, and that he never observed the alleged hazardous curb and sidewalk condition while making his regular, twice-weekly inspections of the strip mall … .

In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff testified that she fell when her left foot stepped into a hole-like depression in the curb/sidewalk, and she marked photographs to show where she fell. Plaintiff also submitted her daughter's affidavit, wherein she averred that after receiving a call about her mother's fall, she responded quickly to the scene of the accident and found her mother on the sidewalk. According to the daughter, her mother pointed to a broken and cracked curb/sidewalk condition and stated that the defective condition caused her to fall. This hearsay statement may be relied upon to defeat summary judgment where, as here, it is not the only evidence submitted in opposition to the motion … . The daughter added that the photographs taken of the sidewalk/curb seven months after the accident, and the area of the photographs her mother marked, accurately depicted the broken condition of the curb/sidewalk as it appeared on the date of the accident. The photographs show a broken curb/sidewalk. Taken together, the evidence raises triable issues of fact whether the broken sidewalk/curb caused plaintiff's fall, and whether the defective condition existed for a sufficient period of time prior to the accident for defendants to have discovered and remedied it … . Uncyk v Cedarhurst Prop. Mgt., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02037, 1st Dept 3-22-16

NEGLIGENCE (HEARSAY OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED) HEARSAY (HEARSAY OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SLIP AND FALL (ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF SLIP AND FALL ADDRESSED BY BOTH SIDES IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

/

PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF THE PRECISE TERM.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the prenuptial agreement waived both parties' entitlement to temporary maintenance during the divorce proceedings. The majority gleaned the intent to waive temporary maintenance from various provisions of the agreement, even though the terms “temporary maintenance” and “interim spousal support” were not used. The dissent argued that the waiver of “maintenance” in the agreement should not be interpreted to waive “temporary maintenance:”

Although the dissent acknowledges that “no particular catechism is required to waive temporary maintenance claims,” it nevertheless finds the agreement ambiguous and suggests that the parties may only have intended to waive a final award of maintenance. No fair reading of the agreement supports that conclusion. When read as a whole, the agreement contains no ambiguity as to whether the parties intended to waive temporary maintenance. As noted, the agreement waives “any and all” maintenance claims, “now and in the future.” Contrary to the dissent's view, there is nothing imprecise about the phrase “any and all.” Indeed, this Court has repeatedly found the use of that phrase to be “clear”… . Further, although minimized by the dissent, the agreement explicitly states that the parties are “fully capable of being self supporting,” which is another indicia that neither intended to seek any kind of maintenance. Anonymous v Anonymous, 2016 NY Slip Op 02016, 1st Dept 3-22-16

FAMILY LAW (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF PRECISE TERM)/MAINTENANCE (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF PRECISE TERM)/PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF PRECISE TERM)

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