You are here: / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT...

Search Results

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the hospital, Good Samaritan, was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of a physician, Chin, who, although not a hospital employee, treated plaintiff in the hospital emergency room:

“In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself” … . However, “[a]n exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . …

Here, although Good Samaritan established that Chin was not its employee, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Good Samaritan’s emergency room seeking treatment from a privately selected physician rather than from the hospital itself … . Fuessel v Chin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00404, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause action in this ladder fall case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action asserted against [defendant]. The plaintiff established, prima facie, [defendant’s] liability under Labor Law § 240(1) through the submission of a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he was provided with a ladder that lacked rubber feet, and that the ladder, which was leaning against a wall, slid away from the wall, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground … . Chapa v Bayles Props., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00397, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS HOSTILE AND CONTINUOUS FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this prescriptive easement action should not have been granted. A fire escape on plaintiff’s building hovers over a portion of defendant’s land, which had been used as parking lot. The defendant argued the encroachment by the fire escape was permissive, not hostile, because the fire escape did not interfere with the use of the parking lot. The Second Department held that was question of fact whether a prescriptive easement had been created before the alleged permissive use:

The defendant, in moving, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff does not have a prescriptive easement, established, prima facie, that the fire escape on the rear of plaintiff’s building that encroaches several feet above the defendant’s property was not hostile, but permissive … . Specifically, the defendant submitted evidence that the fire escape did not interfere with the operation of a parking lot on its property from June 1, 1991, to October 15, 2014. In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the use of the subject fire escape, which hovers over a portion of the defendant’s property, has been adverse, open and notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period … . The plaintiff asserted that the subject fire escape has been in place since at least 1902, and that the period of prescription could have been satisfied and the easement created by the time of the alleged permissive use … . Barrett v A&P Pac. Owner, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00396, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ ,

IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer’s (Unitrin’s) motion for summary judgment in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Apparently Sullivan was in one car and the injured party, Ciminello, was in another car when Sullivan allegedly attempted to throw liquid that was in a cup into Ciminello’s car. It was alleged that Sullivan unintentionally threw the entire cup, not just its contents, which injured Ciminello. So there was a question of fact whether Ciminello was injured by intentional conduct (not covered by insurance) or an accident (which would be covered):

Ciminello raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the harm was inherent in the intentional act committed … . Ciminello submitted evidence that, although Sullivan and his passenger intended to douse Ciminello with the liquid contained in the cup, there was no intent to throw the cup and strike Ciminello with it. As the instant case does not fall within the narrow class of cases in which the intentional act exclusion applies regardless of the insured’s subjective intent … , there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the event qualified as an “accident,” as defined by the policy … . Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. v Sullivan, 2020 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ , , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this class action seeking unpaid wages and overtime, determined Supreme Court should not have. sua sponte, declared certain opt-out statements (opting out of the class action settlement) invalid because the issue was not raised by the plaintiff’s motion and the opt-out statements were not properly before the court:

Pursuant to the February 2018 order, all class members who did not opt out were permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that were released pursuant to the settlement agreement. The February 2018 order also contained a handwritten provision declaring that “[t]he opt outs received on 1/26/18 from Lee Litigation Group are deemed invalid as they were dated prior to the Class Notice which was sent 12/27/17, and do not contain the required opt-out language pursuant to the Class-Notice ordered by this court on November 22, 2017.” Such relief was not sought in the motion filed by the plaintiffs nor was it contained in the proposed order submitted to the court by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  …

CPLR 908 provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court,” and that “[n]otice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, declared invalid certain opt-out statements that were not part of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and which relief was not requested in the motion. “[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the court strayed from this principle … . The relief awarded by the court, sua sponte, in the handwritten provision in the February 2018 order is “dramatically unlike” the relief sought by the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the appellants … . Moreover, the opt-out statements referred to in the February 2018 order were not among the exhibits submitted on the plaintiffs’ motion, and therefore were not properly before the court for consideration … . Robinson v Big City Yonkers, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ , ,

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s application for an upward department was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence defendant was charged but not indicted or convicted does not meet the clear and convincing standard:

A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the People failed to prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence. In granting an upward departure, the court relied upon the defendant’s criminal history. However, the Guidelines account for an offender’s criminal history by assessing points under risk factor 9, and the defendant’s history here was not so extraordinary, extensive, or serious as to demonstrate that the assessment of those points was inadequate to capture his actual risk of reoffense and danger to the community . Further, an upward departure could not properly be based upon certain prior conduct of which the defendant was charged but either never indicted or never convicted, as the People’s evidence regarding that alleged conduct did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard … . People v Pittman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the over $1 million judgment in this negligence and Public-Health-Law-2801-d violation case, determined plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks in summation required a new trial. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was at risk for falling, fell after getting up from a wheelchair at defendant residential health care facility and ultimately died:

“[L]itigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . “The interest of justice thus requires a court to order a new trial where comments by an attorney for a party’s adversary deprived that party of a fair trial or unduly influenced a jury” … .

Here, during summation, the plaintiff’s counsel improperly appealed to the passion of the jurors by characterizing the defendant as a “corporation” that has “two lawyers,” a “tech person,” “general counsel,” and “video people.” Counsel also improperly accused the defendant of willfully depriving the plaintiff of evidence that would have been harmful to the defendant’s case, accused the defendant’s witnesses of having “changed” their testimony after their depositions or pretrial affirmations, which were not in evidence, “because they saw that they couldn’t win,” and improperly argued that the defendant failed to call certain witnesses, who were not under the defendant’s control. Thus, “the comments of the plaintiff[‘s] counsel . . . were not isolated, were inflammatory, and were unduly prejudicial. These prejudicial comments so tainted the proceedings as to have deprived the defendant . . . of a fair trial” … . Nieves v Clove Lakes Health Care & Rehabilitation, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00422, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action, by defaulting, had waived the statute of limitations defense:

CPLR 3211(e) provides that a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived if not asserted in an answer or in a timely motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a). Such a motion is timely if it is made before service of the answer is required (see CPLR 3211[e]). Here, the defendants never answered the complaint, and their cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint was served at least six months after service of the answer was required. Thus, unless the defendants’ default is vacated or excused, the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense, and in their cross motion, the defendants did not seek relief from that waiver. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred without first determining whether the defendants were properly held in default … . Nestor I, LLC v Moriarty-Gentile, 2020 NY Slip Op 00421, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/ , , ,

STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statement by a New Jersey dentist offered by the plaintiff in this dental malpractice action was not admissible because it was not in the form of a sworn affidavit. Therefore plaintiff did not raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment:

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the unsworn affirmation of Martin, who was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of New Jersey. Consequently, the out-of-state dentist’s statement did not constitute admissible evidence in that CPLR 2106 only authorizes attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, or dentists licensed in this state to utilize an affirmation in lieu of a sworn affidavit … . …

While an otherwise qualified expert physician, osteopath, or dentist, who is not licensed in this state, may submit a statement in support of or in opposition to a party’s position in a case at bar, that statement must be in the form of a sworn affidavit. CPLR 2106(a), which permits such a statement to be in the form of an affirmation, only applies to attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, and dentists licensed to practice in the State of New York. Nelson v Lighter, 2020 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/

DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON A REPORTER’S NAMING THE WRONG TEACHER AS HAVING BULLIED A FIFTH-GRADER PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE REPORTER HAD SUFFICIENT REASON TO RELY ON THE STUDENT’S MOTHER AND ANOTHER SOURCE BOTH OF WHOM PROVIDED THE WRONG NAME (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant WPIX was not liable for an article about the bullying of a fifth-grader by a teacher. The teacher allegedly involved in the bullying had the last name “Rainbow,” but plaintiff, Starlight Rainbow, also a teacher, had no involvement with the student. The article misidentified the involved teacher as Starlight Rainbow. The First Department explained the standard of proof and found that the WPIX reporter had sufficient reason to rely on the wrong name provided by the student’s mother and another source. The court further found that there was no duty to retract the story:

The parties … agree that the article concerned a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff is not a public figure. Thus, to prevail on a defamation claim, plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that WPIX was “grossly irresponsible” in publishing the article on its website, in that it acted “without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” (Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196, 199 [1975]). The gross irresponsibility standard of Chapadeau is more lenient than the actual malice standard applicable to public figures … . * * *

… .WPIX could not be held liable for failure to retract the article during the nearly seven months that elapsed from her August 2014 retraction demand to its removal of the article from its website in March, 2015 upon her commencement of this case. Plaintiff provides “no authority to support [her] argument that the Chapadeau standard imposes a duty to correct previously-acquired information — and the law does not recognize such an obligation” … . Rainbow v WPIX, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00499, First Dept 1-23-20

 

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