You are here: / THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted in this action against NYC Health & Hospitals Corp (HHP) alleging a failure to timely diagnose breast cancer. The medical records did not alert HHP to injury from malpractice and petitioner failed to show the HHP was not prejudiced by the delay in serving a notice of claim:

Petitioner failed to show that HHC had actual notice of her claim within 90 days of accrual of the claim, or a reasonable time thereafter. HHC’s “mere possession or creation of medical records does not ipso facto establish that it had actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury on plaintiff'” … . Here, HHC records of petitioner’s treatment do not on their face show any negligence, malpractice or injury to plaintiff, and plaintiff did not submit a physician’s affirmation to make such a showing … .

Likewise, petitioner failed to demonstrate the lack of any prejudice to HHC from the delay, as HHC’s “possession of medical records that could not alert it to a claim of malpractice obviously cannot, ipso facto, establish a lack of prejudice” … . Because petitioner offered no other basis for the lack of prejudice to HHC, the burden never shifted to HHC to show prejudice from the delay … . Matter of Atkinson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03609, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT-LANDLORD VIOLATED NYC LOCAL LAW NO. 1 BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE HAZARDOUS LEAD-PAINT CONDITION IN PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined plaintiffs demonstrated defendants violated Local Law No. 1 of the City of New York in failing to take reasonable measures to address the hazardous lead-based paint condition in plaintiffs’ apartment. However defendants’ medical expert raised a question of fact whether defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s child’ (S.T.’s) injuries:

Under Local Law 1 defendants’ liability is not predicated on their observations of peeling paint or whether they are informed of it. Defendants’ liability does not depend on the mother demonstrating that she credibly complained about each and every instance or location of peeling paint. Even assuming that the mother never complained about the paint condition, defendants are charged with notice of the hazardous lead-based paint condition under Local Law 1 from the time that defendants were aware that S.T. moved into apartment. Moreover, Local Law 1 imposes on landlords “a specific duty to ameliorate hazardous levels of lead-based paint” … . Defendants cannot avoid liability by attempting to shift their statutory obligation to the mother by questioning her memory or her credibility, or for failing to inform them when the paint began to peel. Shifting the burden to the mother is inconsistent with the purpose of Local Law 1 which “is unquestionably intended to protect a definite class of persons [plaintiffs] from a particular hazard they are incapable of avoiding themselves” … . S.T. v 1727-29 LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03630, First Deptp 6-25-20

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the disclosure of tax returns is disfavored, but agreed with Supreme Court that disclosure of the redacted returns in this Labor-Law/employment-law dispute was warranted:

Plaintiffs claim that between 2010 and 2016 defendant employed them as a caretaker for her ailing aunt and that defendant violated, inter alia, several sections of the Department of Labor Regulations (12 NYCRR) requiring overtime pay, a minimum wage, and additional pay for split shifts. Defendant denies that she was plaintiffs’ employer for purposes of the regulations and provisions of the Labor Law, but admits that she paid plaintiffs by check from 2014 to 2016, albeit on her aunt’s behalf. Plaintiffs claim they were paid in cash by defendant between 2010 and 2013. Defendant, who denies that she was the source of the cash payments, seeks plaintiffs’ federal and state tax returns for 2010 to 2013, claiming she needs the returns to verify the cash amounts, as well as plaintiffs’ assertion that they were employees, and not independent contractors.

… [D]efendant demonstrated both that the specific information ordered disclosed was necessary to defend the action, and unavailable from other sources … . Since plaintiffs were paid in cash between 2010 and 2013 and there is no other evidence in the record establishing who paid their wages and how much they were paid during those years, defendant showed a specific need for the production of the three years of tax returns, which might show the amounts claimed by plaintiffs as income from the caretaker work, as well as whether they claimed the income as wages or as money earned through self-employment. Defendant demonstrated that investigating plaintiffs’ bank accounts would be inconclusive, since pay deposited in the accounts could have been commingled with other amounts, and because one of the plaintiffs claimed that she used several banking institutions and did not make deposits on a predictable basis. We note that the court already inspected the tax returns in camera and deemed them relevant. Currid v Valea, 2020 NY Slip Op 03590, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was necessary on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant alleged defense counsel overstated the risk of deportation causing defendant to reject a favorable plea offer:

A defense attorney’s performance is deficient as a matter of law where he or she fails to accurately advise a client of the risk of deportation … . Here, defendant complains that his counsel overstated the immigration consequences of accepting an offer of a guilty plea to petit larceny by advising him that it would “definitely” result in deportation, when in fact it would only have rendered him deportable with the possibility of discretionary relief. Thus, defendant asserts that he rejected a favorable plea offer based on erroneous advice that the conviction would result in mandatory deportation.

We find that a hearing is necessary to determine whether counsel inaccurately advised defendant of the risk of deportation and if so, whether defendant was prejudiced by the attorney’s misadvice … . People v Qinghua Ni, 2020 NY Slip Op 03621, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY PAID A BROKER FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY DEFENDANT INSURER BUT THE INSURER CANCELLED THE POLICY FOR NONPAYMENT; THE INSURER ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS NOT IN THE CHAIN OF BROKERS LEADING FROM PLAINTIFFS TO THE INSURER; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s (Interstate’s) motion for summary judgment in this “wrongful policy cancellation” suit should not have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged they paid a broker for the policy issued by Interstate . The premiums never reached Interstate. Interstate alleged the broker was not in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment:

Plaintiffs allege that they paid a broker the initial premium for the excess liability coverage issued by defendants, and that the broker also procured a financing agreement for them for the balance of the premiums. The party financing the premiums paid the broker on plaintiffs’ behalf and plaintiffs complied with the financing agreement. Plaintiffs’ president testified that plaintiffs only dealt with that broker, who delivered the policies to them. However, the premiums never reached defendants, who canceled the policies. Thereafter, three persons were killed during the term of the policies in an accident on plaintiffs’ premises when the decedents inhaled hydrogen sulfide fumes (the accident). Defendants disclaimed coverage.

Where an insured makes timely payment to a broker in the chain of brokers and the insurer delivers the policy to the broker pursuant to the broker’s request, Insurance Law § 2121 precludes the insurer from canceling the policy based on nonpayment of premiums where the broker did not remit the payment to the insurer … .

Here, the record is replete with triable issues of fact as to whether the broker with whom plaintiffs state they dealt was in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate, such that the payment of the premiums to the broker was sufficient to bind Interstate. Plaintiffs referred to the testimony of their president that the broker was the only broker used by them, and that the broker’s employee delivered the policies to them. Moreover, the premium checks were made payable to the broker, who prepared a loss summary, and no evidence was presented demonstrating that another broker delivered the policies to plaintiffs. However, the absence of significant paperwork naming the broker cited by plaintiffs as a broker in the transaction, the testimony of the wholesale brokers that they did not deal with the broker cited by plaintiffs and would not do so, and the Notice of Excess Line Placement naming a different entity as plaintiffs’ broker, raise questions that preclude summary judgment in favor of either plaintiffs or Interstate. Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03616, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS RE: DEBRIS IN PASSAGEWAYS AND KEEPING EQUIPMENT IN GOOD REPAIR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action should not have been granted. There were questions of fact whether the Industrial Code provisions re: debris in passageways and keeping equipment in good repair were violated. Plaintiff was injured when a wheeled dumpster allegedly tipped over:

Plaintiff’s claim premised upon § 23-1.7(e)(2), which concerns debris in passageways, is viable because the area where the accident occurred was a passageway for the purposes of that provision … . The provision applies not just when loose debris causes a direct trip and fall, but also in circumstances similar to those involved here … .

With regard to § 23-1.28(b), which pertains to hand-propelled vehicles, and § 23-1.5(c), which prohibits use of machinery or equipment that is not in good repair and safe working condition, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the wheeled dumpster was not defective … . Sancino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 03615, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/ ,

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding because the petitioner and the respondent were not members of the same family or household and had not been in an intimate relationship:

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding brought by the foster mother of respondent’s biological children. Petitioner failed to establish that she and respondent, who are not members of the same family or household, are or have been in an intimate relationship (see Family Court Act § 812[1][e] …). Petitioner testified that she did not even know respondent’s first name. It appears from the record that petitioner’s contact with respondent has been limited to scheduling visitation with the children at the agency and, perhaps, interacting with respondent when she went to petitioner’s home to pick up the children for visits. Matter of Veronica C. v Ariann D., 2020 NY Slip Op 03612, First Dept 6-25-20

 

/ , ,

THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL; DESPITE THE AFFIRMANCE OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION ON APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE THE APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his depraved-indifference murder conviction should have been granted. The Court of Appeals opinion which changed the proof requirements for the depraved indifference mens rea was issued before defendant’s conviction became final. The proof at defendant’s trial demonstrated defendant acted intentionally as opposed acting with “depraved indifference:”

… [T]he defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate so much of the judgment as convicted him of depraved indifference murder, arguing that, in light of People v Payne (3 NY3d 266), which was decided 15 days after this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on his direct appeal but before his conviction became final (see Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 593), the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea for depraved indifference murder. The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, as both procedurally barred by CPL 440.10(2)(a) and meritless. The court reasoned that the defendant’s legal sufficiency argument based on the change of law set forth in People v Payne had been addressed and rejected by this Court in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to reargue his direct appeal, by the Court of Appeals in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, and by the federal court in denying the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. With respect to the merits of the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of depraved indifference murder (see People v Payne, 3 NY3d at 272; People v Hernandez, 167 AD3d at 940). People v Illis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03535, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

/ ,

DEFENSE ‘FALSE CONFESSION’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, CONVICTION REVERSED; RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES NOT VIOLATED BY STATEMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTERROGATION THAT NONTESTIFYING WITNESSES HAD IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the defense “false confession” expert should have been allowed to testify. The defendant was 15 when arrested. He maintained his innocence for two hours and 45 minutes of interrogation before confessing. The Second Department rejected defendant’s argument that he was denied his right to confront witnesses by statements in the video interrogation that nontestifying witnesses had implicated the defendant:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his right to confrontation was not violated when the Supreme Court allowed into evidence portions of his videotaped statement to law enforcement officials that contained statements that nontestifying witnesses had implicated him in the crime. The statements were not received for their truth, but to explain the defendant’s reaction to hearing them … . Further, the court properly instructed the jury that it was not to consider any of the statements as evidence against the defendant, and the jury is presumed to have followed this admonition … . * * *

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to permit testimony from his expert witness on the issue of false confessions. We have previously determined that “it cannot be said that psychological studies bearing on the reliability of a confession are, as a general matter, within the ken of the typical juror'” … . Thus, here, the court should not have precluded the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness on this ground.

Further, “[w]ith regard to expert testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions, in order to be admissible, the expert’s proffer must be relevant to the [particular] defendant and interrogation before the court'” … . Here, the report of the defendant’s expert was sufficiently detailed so that it was relevant to this particular defendant, including discussing characteristics that heightened his vulnerability to manipulation, and the interrogation conducted by the detectives, such as the techniques that were utilized and the improper participation of the defendant’s mother during the interview. People v Churaman, 2020 NY Slip Op 03526, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

/ ,

VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DEFECT IN THIS SIDEWALK/TREE-WELL SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk/tree-well slip and fall case should not have been granted. The Village demonstrated it did not have the required written notice of the defect, but did not demonstrate it did not create the defect:

” A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies'” … . “Two exceptions to the prior written notice requirement have been recognized, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a special use confers a special benefit upon the locality” … .

“[T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged in her complaint and bill of particulars that the Village affirmatively created the defect that caused the accident. Therefore, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Village had to demonstrate both that it did not have prior written notice of the defect and that it did not create the defect … . The Village established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, but it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not affirmatively create the alleged defect … . Nigro v Village of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03518, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

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