You are here: / COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S...

Search Results

/ ,

COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have anulled the respondent college’s ruling as arbitrary and capricious. The controversy concerned the hiring of a business manager by the student government (Brockport Student Government or BSG). Although BSG had the power to hire a manager at approximately $50,000 a year, the college, which must ultimately approve the hiring, rejected it and engaged a managing service for $20,000 less. Because the college’s ruling had a rational basis, it could not be deemed arbitrary and capricious simply because the reviewing court would have decided differently. The Fourth Department explained what “arbitrary and capricious” means:

 

…[T]the court erred in determining that their denial of BSG’s budget allocation for a business manager was arbitrary and capricious. It is well established that “[a]n action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts . . . An agency’s determination is entitled to great deference and, [i]f the [reviewing] court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency” … . Here, we conclude that respondents’ discretionary determination to reject BSG’s proposed $49,800 salary for a business manager which was based on a comparison of the “hiring practices and compensation rates of other campus-affiliated organizations”… . Matter of Brockport Student Govt. v State Univ. of N.Y. at Brockport, 2016 NY Slip Op 01099, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE’S REJECTION OF REQUEST BY STUDENT GOVERNMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)/ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY)

/ ,

DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL FINAL SITE APPROVAL IN LIGHT OF A CONFLICTING REZONING LAW IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL.

The Court of Appeals determined petitioners did not have a vested right in a conditional final site approval because it was not reasonable for petitioners rely on the approval in light of the conflicting local law rezoning the property:

An owner of real property can acquire a common law vested right to develop the property in accordance with prior zoning regulations when, in reliance on a “legally issued permit,” the landowner “effect[s] substantial changes and incur[s] substantial expenses to further the development” and “[t]he landowner’s actions relying on [the] valid permit [are] so substantial that the municipal action results in serious loss rendering the improvements essentially valueless” (see generally 4 Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 70:20 [4th ed]). Here, it was not reasonable for petitioners to rely on the December 2007 conditional Final Site Approval of the development, in carrying out any substantial actions furthering the development. In particular, in 2005, the year before the rezoning of petitioners’ property by means of Local Law No. 3 (2006) of Town of Newburgh, the Town Planning Board had repeatedly warned petitioners of the proposed rezoning. The December 2007 Approval itself did not engender expectations to the contrary. It included a statement of the new zoning status of the property. Additionally, while petitioners challenged the rezoning in court, petitioners must have been “cognizant of the potential for an eventual legal ruling that the Local Law was in fact valid” … . Matter of Exeter Bldg. Corp. v Town of Newburgh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00999, CtApp 2-11-16

ZONING (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN A CONDITIONAL FINAL SITE APPROVAL)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE ARRIVED AT USING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED IN UTERO INJURY FROM GASOLINE FUMES IN CAR MANUFACTURED BY DEFENDANT BMW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the trial court’s preclusion of plaintiff’s experts’ opinions on causation of plaintiff’s in utero injuries was proper. Plaintiff alleged his severe birth defects were caused by gasoline fumes breathed by his mother when she drove a car manufactured by defendant BMW. Plaintiff’s experts attempted to demonstrate a causal connection between breathing the fumes and the in utero injuries. The Court of Appeals held the experts had not demonstrated their opinions were reached by employing a methodology generally accepted in the scientific community:

 

Not only is it necessary for a causation expert to establish that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of a toxin to have caused his injuries, but the expert also must do so through methods “found to be generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community” … . This “general acceptance” requirement, also known as the Frye test, governs the admissibility of expert testimony in New York. It asks “whether the expert’s techniques, when properly performed, generate results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally” … . Although unanimity is not required, the proponent must show “consensus in the scientific community as to the [methodology’s] reliability” … .

Plaintiff and his experts have failed to make that showing in this case. Dr. Frazier and Dr. Kramer concluded that plaintiff was exposed to a sufficient amount of gasoline vapor to have caused his injuries based on the reports by plaintiff’s mother and grandmother that the smell of gasoline occasionally caused them nausea, dizziness, headaches and throat irritation. Plaintiff and his experts have not identified any text, scholarly article or scientific study, however, that approves of or applies this type of methodology, let alone a “consensus” as to its reliability. Therefore, the courts below properly granted defendants’ motion to preclude their testimony at trial. Sean R. v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01000, CtApp 2-11-16

 

TOXIC TORTS (EXPERTS’ OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE CAUSE BY GASOLINE FUMES NOT SUPPORTED BY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY)/EVIDENCE (EXPERTS’ OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE CAUSE BY GASOLINE FUMES NOT SUPPORTED BY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY)/EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (EXPERTS’ OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE CAUSE BY GASOLINE FUMES NOT SUPPORTED BY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY)/FRYE TEST (EXPERTS’ OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE CAUSE BY GASOLINE FUMES NOT SUPPORTED BY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY)

/ ,

FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, found that a property owner, West River, which had a statutory duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment based solely on the fact that the defect in the sidewalk over which plaintiff tripped was not in front West River’s property. The expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was in front of a neighboring property (the Mercado property). However, a nearby portion of the sidewalk which had subsided was in front of West River’s property. Therefore, to be entitled to summary judgment, West River was required to demonstrate it did not breach its duty to maintain the sidewalk, or that any such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall.  Simply demonstrating the expansion joint over which plaintiff tripped was not in front of West River’s property was not enough:

 

Plaintiff tripped on an expansion joint that abutted the Mercados’ property. That does not end the inquiry, nor does the fact that the defect upon which plaintiff tripped was in front of the Mercado property necessarily absolve West River of liability. Although West River did not have a duty to remedy any defects in front of the Mercado property, section 7-210 (a) [of the Administrative Code of the City of New York] imposed a duty on West River to maintain the sidewalk abutting its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moreover, the plain language of section 7-210 (b) provides that West River may be held liable for injuries where its failure to maintain its sidewalk is a proximate cause of that injury. Here, most of the sunken sidewalk flag that plaintiff traversed abutted West River’s property, and plaintiff claims that West River’s sidewalk flag had sunk lower than the expansion joint upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped. Thus, West River failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, leaving factual questions as to whether West River breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk flag abutting its property and, if so, whether that breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment should have been denied. Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01002, CtApp 2-11-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SLIP AND FALL (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)/SIDEWALKS (FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT)

/ ,

BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE” REFERRED TO EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WAS INJURED, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE; THEREFORE THE DEDUCTIBLE WAS TRIGGERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH INJURED CLASS MEMBER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the policy-term “occurrence,” for purposes of applying the deductible for each “occurrence,” meant each time a member of the class was injured, and not the single injury to the class as a whole. The class action was brought by an arrestee who was illegally strip-searched at the county jail. 800 others similarly searched made up the class. The insurance policy taken out by the county included a deductible of $10,000 for each “occurrence.” The county argued that the injury to the class as a whole was a single occurrence and triggered only one $10,000 deductible. The court held that, based on the plain language of the policy, each strip-search constituted a separate occurrence. Therefore the $10,000 deductible applied to each member of the class (making the county liable for all the damage payments):

 

The plain language of the insurance policy indicates that the improper strip searches of the arrestees over a four-year period constitute separate occurrences under the policies at issue. Contrary to the County’s argument, the definition of “occurrence” in the policies is not ambiguous. The policy defines ‘occurrence’ as “an event, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results in . . . ‘personal injury’ . . . by any person or organization and arising out of the insured’s law enforcement duties” (emphasis added). Thus, the language of the insurance policies makes clear that it covers personal injuries to an individual person as a result of a harmful condition. The definition does not permit the grouping of multiple individuals who were harmed by the same condition, unless that group is an organization, which is clearly not the case here. The harm each experienced was as an individual, and each of the strip searches constitutes a single occurrence … . Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v County of Rensselaer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01001, CtApp 2-11-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (CLASS ACTION, DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/CLASS ACTION (INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CLASS ACTION, COUNTY’S INSURANCE POLICY DEDUCTIBLE APPLIED TO EACH INJURED MEMBER OF THE CLASS, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE)

/

FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender because the operative prior conviction occurred outside the 10-year look-back period. Defendant was convicted of assault and sentenced to probation in 1994. He subsequently violated probation and was sentenced to incarceration in 1995. The lower courts used the 1995 sentence, which was within the 10-year look-back. But the Court of Appeals determined the 1994 sentence controlled. The revocation of probation in 1995 did not annul the original 1994 sentence:

 

The People would have us believe that sentence was imposed with respect to the prior conviction twice — once, in 1994, when defendant was subject to a period of probation through the original sentence, and again in 1995, when defendant was subject to a period of incarceration through the resentence. To be sure, the period of probation was imposed as part of a revocable sentence (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [a] [i]), which is a “tentative [punishment in] that it may be altered or revoked” (Penal Law § 60.01 [2] [b]). For all other purposes, however, a revocable sentence “shall be deemed to be a final judgment of conviction” (id.), and where “the part of the sentence that provides for probation is revoked, the court must sentence [a defendant] to imprisonment or to [a] sentence of imprisonment and probation” (Penal Law § 60.01 [4] [emphasis added]). The legislature’s reference to the revocation of the part of the sentence imposing probation suggests that the substitution of a different punishment — such as incarceration — for the probation a defendant has violated does not constitute a new sentence, but rather a replacement of the original, conditional penalty reflected in the sentence.

Put differently, to revoke a penalty of probation does not equate to annulling a sentence. People v Thompson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00997, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SENTENCING (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)/SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS/(TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK, DATE OF ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS)

/ ,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RELIEVED DEFENSE COUNSEL ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS BECAUSE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not err by relieving defendant’s attorney, over defendant’s objection, on conflict of interest grounds.  The defense attorney, Fisher, worked for New York County Defender Services (NYCDS). Another NYCDS attorney had represented Stephens, who was involved in the same incident which led to the charges against the defendant. Fisher had no knowledge of the facts of Stephens’ case, but, before he learned of the conflict, Fisher had been looking for Stephens during his investigation as a possible witness. Fisher was instructed by his supervisors at NYCDS he could not question Stephens, call Stephens as a witness, or cross-examine Stephens if the People called him. The defendant told the trial judge he was willing to waive the conflict, because he wanted Fisher to act as his attorney, but he wanted to call Stephens as a witness. The trial judge determined the conflict warranted the assignment of new counsel:

 

… [T]he Appellate Division erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion. Supreme Court appropriately balanced defendant’s countervailing rights, based on the information it had at the time, and reasonably concluded that Fisher could not effectively represent defendant due to NYCDS’s representation of Stephens and the duty of loyalty Fisher’s supervisors were asserting toward that former client. People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00998, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined decedent’s representative had raised a question of fact whether the driver of a city dump truck was negligent. Decedent was a passenger in a car which struck the back of the dump struck which was either stopped or coming to a stop in the left lane of the highway. Although the driver of the truck testified a tire had just blown, causing the truck to veer to the left, the truck was still moving when struck, and the emergency flashing lights were on, the sole eyewitness testified the truck was parked and its lights were not on:

 

The City made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that its truck was lawfully stopped on the highway due to an emergency (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1202[a][1][j]) when it was struck in the rear by the Cadena vehicle. However, in opposition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, affording him the benefit of every favorable inference …, and applying the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York, 298 NY 76, 80) to hold him to a lesser standard of proof, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck driver exercised reasonable care in warning other drivers of the hazard posed by his disabled vehicle. Generally, when one causes a public road to become obstructed, there is a duty to “exercise[ ] the care that a reasonably prudent person should have under all the circumstances” … . The exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances may include warning other motorists of the hazards posed by the obstruction … . Typically, whether reasonable care was exercised is a question of fact … .

The City’s truck driver testified at a deposition that the truck’s headlights were on, that after the blowout of the tire he activated the truck’s emergency lights, and that the accident occurred within seconds of veering into the left lane while he was still moving 10 to 15 miles per hour. However, the sole eyewitness to the accident, Weiguo Qu, indicated that he saw the truck “parked” in the left lane of a highway with its lights off and no flashing lights. In light of this conflicting evidence, triable issues of fact exist regarding, among other things, whether the City’s truck driver failed to exercise reasonable care to warn other motorists of the obstruction and, if so, whether such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . Pinilla v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 00953, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

EMINENT DOMAIN (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/LANDLORD-TENANT (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)/TRADE FIXTURES (TENANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES IN PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLED BY EMINENT DOMAIN)

/ , ,

FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE SCARRING WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONSENT FORM, AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT SCARRING, REQUIRED DENIAL OF PHYSICIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined defendant physician (Barazani) was not entitled to summary judgment on the “lack of informed consent” cause of action, despite the plaintiff’s signing of a consent form. Although the consent form mentioned scarring as a possibility, there was no showing the defendant discussed scarring with the plaintiff before the consent form was signed. In addition, there was no showing plaintiff would have gone through with the surgery had scarring been adequately discussed. [Another example of the need for a defendant seeking summary judgment to affirmatively address every possible theory of recovery.]:

 

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d[1]…).

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . The consent form provided by the defendants and signed by the plaintiff warned generally that there was a risk of scarring after the biopsy was conducted. However, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff and Barazani, which was submitted by the defendants in support of their motion, revealed a factual dispute as to whether Barazani properly advised the plaintiff of the risk of scarring before she signed the form … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that if the plaintiff had received full disclosure, she still would have consented to the procedure … . Schussheim v Barazani, 2016 NY Slip Op 00958, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)

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