You are here: / Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician...

Search Results

/ ,

Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied

The Second Department noted that a hospital generally may not be held liable for the actions of a private attending physician (Simoncic) where the hospital employees merely carry out the orders of the private physician.  Here, however, there was evidence the attending physician’s order was contraindicated.  Therefore the hospital’s motion to dismiss was properly denied:

With regard to the Hospital’s potential liability, a hospital may not be held liable for injuries suffered by a patient who is under the care of a private attending physician chosen by the patient where the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital merely carry out the orders of the private attending physician, unless the hospital staff commits “independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” (Cerny v Williams, 32 AD3d 881, 883; see Cham v St. Mary’s Hosp. of Brooklyn, 72 AD3d 1003, 1004).

Here, the Hospital established, prima facie, that Simoncic was a private attending physician, and that its employees did not commit independent acts of negligence and that Simoncic’s discharge order that [the patient] be given a prescription for Levaquin was not contraindicated by normal practice. However, in opposition, the plaintiff, through her opposing medical expert’s affirmation, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the prescribing of Levaquin was contraindicated by normal practice … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Fink v DeAngelis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03648, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

No Basis for Liability of Snow-Removal Contractor Re: Slip and Fall

The Second Department determined a snow-removal contractor was properly granted summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about any of the three “Espinal” [98 NY2d 136] situations (which would allow recovery against a contractor with whom plaintiff does not have a contractual relationship):

The Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a party such as the defendant may be said to have assumed a duty of care, and thus potentially may be liable in tort to third persons such as the plaintiff: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duty to maintain the premises safely … . * * *

…[T]he plaintiff offered only speculation and conjecture in support of her contention that the defendant launched a force or instrument of harm by creating or exacerbating the ice patch that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall …, or that the subject snow removal contract was a comprehensive and exclusive agreement which displaced Communicar’s duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition … . Javid v Sclafmore Constr, 2014 NY Slip Op 03656, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Expert Testimony Should Not Have Been Precluded Based Upon the Timing of the Disclosure—Short Adjournment Would Have Eliminated Prejudice—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have precluded expert testimony based upon the timing of the expert disclosure:

“CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) does not require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute, unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party'”… .

The defendants did not establish that the plaintiffs willfully or intentionally violated a court directive regarding expert disclosure … . Moreover, any prejudice to the defendants from late disclosure would have been limited, inasmuch as the defendants’ own engineer was present when the plaintiffs’ engineer conducted his inspection (\… . A short adjournment of this nonjury trial could have eliminated prejudice entirely … . Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ application for preclusion of the plaintiffs’ experts (see id.). Accordingly, a new trial is warranted. Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03644, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

The Second Department determined plaintiff, a student playing supervised indoor floor hockey in school, stated a cause of action for negligent supervision:

“A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent” … . A school is under a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “Whether a student is properly supervised depends largely on the circumstances attending the event'” … . * * *

The defendants’ submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the conduct of [the gym teacher], who was participating in the game during gym class and was involved in the contact which allegedly injured the plaintiff, constituted proper supervision, as well as whether the alleged negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Godoy v Central Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 03652, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

/

Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the injunctive relief sought by defendants was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issues had been decided in a prior appeal of a related but separate action.  The court explained the respective burdens of proof as follows:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Zanani v Schvimmer, 2014 NY Slip Op 03680, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/

Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion

The Second Department noted that the rule barring successive summary judgment motions does not apply where the issue in the second motion was not properly before the court in the first motion.  Here the defendants had raised the issue the first time in their Reply papers and the court refused to consider it:

We note that the general proscription against successive motions for summary judgment would not bar the defendants from moving for summary judgment dismissing the consolidated complaint because their arguments in support of dismissal … were not properly before the Supreme Court on their original motion … . Vaughn v Veolia Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03679, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/

Difference Between Law of the Case and Issue and Claim Preclusion Explained

The Second Department explained the difference between  the doctrines of law of the case and issue and claim and issue preclusion:

“[L];aw of the case rests on a foundation that . . . distinguishes it from issue and claim preclusion. Whereas the latter concepts are rigid rules of limitation, law of the case is a judicially crafted policy that expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is]; not a limit to their power. As such, law of the case is necessarily amorphous in that it directs a court’s discretion, but does not restrict its authority”… . Matter of Mazur Bros Realty LLC v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ , ,

Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Will Not Be Invoked Unless there Has Been at Least One Full Hearing on the Issues Involved

The Second Department, in determining collateral estoppel did not apply to a Notice of Determination that plaintiff was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, explained that the collateral estoppel doctrine will not be invoked  unless there has been at least one full hearing on the issues involved:

Pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is otherwise known as issue preclusion, a party may be barred from relitigating an issue which has been decided in another proceeding by a court or in a quasi-judicial administrative forum … . In addition, … “[a];s the consequences of a determination that a party is collaterally estopped from litigating a particular issue are great, strict requirements for application of the doctrine must be satisfied to insure that a party not be precluded from obtaining at least one full hearing on his or her claim” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Notice of Determination was rendered after a hearing or that it otherwise constitutes a quasi-judicial determination … . Twaddell v Drop & Lock Stor Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03678, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Fraud—Plaintiff Agreed to Forgo Compensation for Work Done for Defendant in Return for a Stake in Defendant’s Business—Defendant Terminated the Relationship Without Paying Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for breach of contract and fraud.  The complaint alleged plaintiff had agreed to forego compensation for his construction and managerial work for defendant in return for a stake in defendant’s business.  The complaint further alleged defendant, after plaintiff had done the work, terminated the relationship without paying plaintiff:

The essential elements for pleading a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach … . According the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint alleged that the defendants breached the parties’ agreement and that, as a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover its normal fees and compensation for the subject work. …

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Where the gravamen of the alleged fraud does not arise from the mere failure of a promisor to perform his or her obligations under a contract, but arises from a promisor’s successful attempts to induce a promisee to enter into a contractual relationship despite the fact that the promisor harbored an undisclosed intention not to perform under the contract, a proper cause of action sounding in fraud may be stated. “[A]; false statement, promissory in nature, may be deemed the statement of a material existing fact, because it falsely represents the [declarant’s]; state of mind and the state of his [or her]; mind is a fact'” … . “There is no doubt that a misrepresented intention to perform a contract may constitute actionable fraud” … , and “a statement of present intention is deemed a statement of a material existing fact, sufficient to support a fraud action” … .

Here, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the third cause of action alleged that the defendants made a promise to give the plaintiff an equity stake in the maple syrup venture if the plaintiff agreed to forego its normal fees and compensation for the subject work, that the defendants made that promise while harboring an undisclosed intention never to give the plaintiff such an equity stake, and that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendants’ representation of intent by performing the subject work for them. These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud. Neckles Bldrs Inc v Turner, 2014 NY Slip Op 03668, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ , ,

Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College

The Second Department determined defendants security company (Secuitas), security guard (Jarrett) and college (Manhattanville) did not owe any duty to a taxi driver who was allegedly attacked and injured by students on a college campus.  The complaint alleged a security guard (Jarrett) was nearby and did nothing to intervene in the attack:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . Before an injured party may recover as a third-party beneficiary for failure to perform a duty imposed by contract, it must clearly appear from the provisions of the contract that the parties thereto intended to confer a direct benefit on the alleged third-party beneficiary to protect him or her from physical injury … .

The plaintiff here was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Securitas and Manhattanville, as the contract did not contain any express provision that it would protect individuals on the campus from physical injury or attack … . Securitas and Jarrett did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard … . Securitas did not assume a duty pursuant to the contract to prevent assaults, or to protect the plaintiff from physical injury inflicted by intervening third-party assailants … . As such, Securitas and Jarrett established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ramirez v Genovese, 2014 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

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