You are here: / CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE...

Search Results

/ , , ,

CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ACTIONS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the continuous representation doctrine did not apply and the legal malpractice action was time-barred. Plaintiff was represented by defendant law firm in a 2005 divorce. Plaintiff’s ex-wife then sued plaintiff alleging he fraudulently concealed an asset in the divorce proceedings. Defendant law firm successfully defended the fraud action. 12 years after the divorce action ended, plaintiff sued the law firm for malpractice, asking to be relieved of the obligation to pay the law firm’s legal fees in the fraud action:

The motion court correctly found that this action, which was commenced 12 years after the divorce action ended, is barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the continuous representation doctrine is inapplicable, because defendants were retained under two separately executed retainer agreements in the divorce action and the fraud action … . The first retainer agreement expressly stated that it did not cover any services following the entry of a final judgment of divorce. Thus, there was no mutual understanding that further representation was necessary on the specific subject matter of the malpractice claim … . Moreover, the divorce action and the fraud action, although related, were two distinct and separate actions … . Etzion v Blank Rome, LLP2019 NY Slip Op 05468, First Dept 7-9-19

 

/ , , , ,

STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, and refusing to follow the 2nd Department, determined certain statements made in connection with a hospital’s (SUNY Upstate’s) quality assurance investigation were privileged pursuant to the Education Law and Public Health Law and therefore were not subject to discovery in this medical malpractice action:

“The New York State Education Law shields from disclosure the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program’ ” ( … see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2]). Although there is an exception to that privilege, “the exception is narrow” … and is limited to “statements made by any person in attendance at such a [quality assurance] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2] …).

Here, the “statements” at issue were provided shortly after the incident and were obtained as part of SUNY Upstate’s quality assurance investigation. The statements, however, were not made at a quality assurance committee meeting; nor were they made in response to any inquiries initiated by the committee … . None of the defendants appeared at any committee meeting. Thus, we agree with SUNY Upstate and defendants that plaintiff’s proposed construction of the statutory exception would not give any practical effect to the phrase “in attendance,” but rather would render that phrase meaningless … . Further, the Court of Appeals specifically instructed that the exception is “narrow and limited to statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting” … .  Following plaintiff’s proposed construction “would extend the [statutory] exception to a point where it would swallow the general rule that materials used by a hospital in quality review and malpractice prevention programs are strictly confidential” … . Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05464, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/ ,

RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE HOW THE TRIAL COURT HANDLED NOTES FROM THE JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF HOLDING A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING IS MOOT AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, determined the record was not sufficient to determine how the trial court handled notes from the jury and reversal was therefore required:

… [R]eversal is required as a result of ” the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30′ ” in response to two substantive jury notes … . Here, the stenographer was unable to transcribe the final day of the trial that included County Court’s handling of the jury notes due to an error that rendered the subject electronic stenographic notes unrecoverable, and a reconstruction hearing failed to establish the court’s on-the-record handling of those notes. We “cannot assume that the proper procedure was utilized when the record is devoid of information as to how jury notes were handled” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial. In light of our determination, defendant’s challenge to the propriety of holding a reconstruction hearing under these circumstances is moot, and we reject defendant’s contention that his challenge falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine … . People v Grimes, 2019 NY Slip Op 05461, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER THE RESULTING SENTENCE WAS TOO HARSH; SENTENCE REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that, although defendant met the criteria for a persistent felony offender, he should not have been sentenced as a persistent felony offense due to the nature of his prior offenses. His sentence was reduced from 15 to life to 9 to 18 years. Defendant had been offered 2 !/2 to 5 prior to trial:

… [T]he imposition of persistent felony offender status is unduly harsh and severe. The sentencing court’s determination to sentence a defendant as a persistent felony offender “cannot be held erroneous as a matter of law, unless [that] court acts arbitrarily or irrationally” … . Even where the sentencing court does not err as a matter of law in adjudicating a defendant to be a persistent felony offender, “[t]he Appellate Division, in its own discretion, may conclude that a persistent felony offender sentence is too harsh or otherwise improvident” … . “In this way, the Appellate Division can and should mitigate inappropriately severe applications of the statute” … . “A determination by the Appellate Division to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding is authorized by CPL 470.20 (6), which grants the Appellate Division discretion to modify sentences in the interest of justice without deference to the sentencing court’ ” … . People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 05454, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT TO FATHER; MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ARREARS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department concluded the support magistrate should not have awarded father child support because mother and father shared custody equally and father had the greater income and assets. The Fourth Department determined, in this circumstance, mother should be awarded arrears based upon the child support she should not have been ordered to pay:

… [M]other that she is entitled to a credit against any arrears from the order for the amount of child support erroneously awarded to the father from April 2, 2015 until January 1, 2016, and we therefore remit the matter to Family Court to determine the amount of arrears and the credit to be applied thereto. Although there is a strong public policy against recoupment of child support overpayments … , we conclude that the requested credit is appropriate under the limited circumstances of this case. Here, the record establishes that the mother had significantly less income and received certain public benefits, while the father received substantial disability and pension benefits and had significant assets … . Moreover, granting the mother’s request “will not detract from [the father] fulfilling the needs of the child[ ] while [he is] in [the father’s] care” and, indeed, will relieve the mother of an erroneously-imposed financial obligation, thereby allowing her to use her funds to maintain a stable household for the child and meet his reasonable needs during visitation … . Matter of Rapp v Horbett, 2019 NY Slip Op 05447, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/ , ,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT, AS PROMISED, INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE PURPOSES OF INTRODUCING HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE CHILD-VICTIM’S DISCLOSURES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT OBJECTING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that any error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the purposes for the introductions of evidence of the child-victim’s disclosure of sexual assault in 2009 and in 2014, evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible bolstering, was not preserved. The dissenters argued that the error was reversible and defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance:

From the dissent:

Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission to introduce evidence that the victim reported an incident of sexual contact with defendant to her aunt in 2009, and that she again disclosed the incident in 2014. The court concluded that the People could introduce evidence that the victim made a prompt complaint in 2009 if they laid a proper foundation establishing that the complaint was made at the first suitable opportunity, and that they could introduce evidence that the victim reported the contact in 2014 for the sole purpose of establishing how the investigative process began at that time. The court indicated that it would provide an appropriate limiting instruction if the evidence was introduced.

At trial, the People introduced evidence that the victim reported the sexual contact to her aunt in 2009 and to several other people at various times in 2014 and 2015. Nevertheless, the court did not give a limiting instruction either when the testimony was given or at the end of the case. Although we agree with the majority that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to give the promised charge, we conclude that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by that error, and we would exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. * * *

… [Defendant] was deprived of effective assistance by his attorney’s failure to object the court’s failure to give the promised limiting instruction. The majority concludes that defense counsel’s failure to preserve that issue does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance, citing People v Gross(26 NY3d 689, 696 [2016]). We respectfully disagree. In Gross, the majority of the Court of Appeals concluded that defense counsel may not have objected to the prosecutor’s comments on the evidence for tactical reasons. Here, there was no possible tactical basis for “defense counsel’s inexplicable failure to object” when the court failed to give the promised limiting instruction … . People v Hymes, 2019 NY Slip Op 05441, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OWNER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED IN THEIR NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO SHUT OFF THE ELECTRICITY IN A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK WHEN HE STRIPPED INSULATION FROM AN ELECTRIC CABLE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the property owner/general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff received an electric shock when cutting away the insulation of an electric cable as part of a demolition project. Plaintiff was to make the wiring in the office safe and was going to test the voltage of the wires lying on the floor when he received the shock:

… [T]he court erroneously granted defendants’ motion with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against them insofar as that claim is predicated upon alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) and 23-3.2 (a) (2) and (3), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The first of those provisions of the Industrial Code states that “[n]o employer shall suffer or permit an employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that he may contact such circuit in the course of his work unless the employee is protected against electric shock by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means” (12 NYCRR 23-1.13 [b] [4] …). The latter provisions state, inter alia, that electric lines must be “shut off and capped or otherwise sealed” before any demolition project begins (12 NYCRR 23-3.2 [a] [2] …) and, if it is necessary to maintain an electric line during demolition, “such lines shall be so protected with substantial coverings or shall be so relocated as to protect them from damage and to afford protection to any person” (12 NYCRR 23-3.2 [a] [3]). Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not violate the regulations, that the regulations are not applicable to the facts of this case, or that such violation was not a proximate cause of the accident” … . We conclude that there are issues of fact whether, inter alia, defendants’ failure in their nondelegable duty to shut off the electricity was a proximate cause of the accident … . Winters v Uniland Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05440, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER, A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER WHO SLAPPED AN UNRULY STUDENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined substantial evidence supported the guilty findings on three disciplinary charges against petitioner, a driver of a school bus for special needs children. Petitioner had slapped a nine-year-old student who had become unruly. However, the majority determined the termination of the petitioner, a long-time employee with an unblemished record, was too severe a penalty. The two dissenters argued termination was appropriate:

… [I]n light of petitioner’s otherwise unblemished disciplinary record during her 20 years as a school bus driver, including five years driving special needs students, we conclude that termination, absent any other previous progressive disciplinary steps, is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock one’s sense of fairness  … . Although we are mindful of our limited role in evaluating the discipline imposed here … , we nevertheless conclude that the circumstances of this unfortunate occurrence, viewed in the specific context of petitioner’s background, establish that the harsh penalty of termination was disproportionate and shocking to our sense of fairness. Petitioner was confronted by a student who, due to his special needs, lost control of his behavior and was significantly disrupting the other students on the bus, some of whom were also struggling to behave. Petitioner’s was not premeditated and, under these circumstances, appears to be the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. There is nothing in petitioner’s employment history to suggest that she will ever engage in similar conduct again.

Although termination in these circumstances shocks our sense of fairness, we do not condone petitioner’s behavior, and only conclude that some form of discipline short of termination would be appropriate. We therefore modify the determination by granting the petition in part and vacating the penalty imposed, and we remit the matter to respondent for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than termination … . Matter of Ansley v Jamesville-DeWitt Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 05439, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005 SURGERY AND THE 2010 SURGERY WERE DISCRETE EVENTS; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action based upon a 2005 thyroid surgery by the same doctor who performed the 2010 thyroid surgery was time-barred. The two surgeries were discrete events and the statute of limitations was not tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

Defendants established that [the 2005] claims are time-barred inasmuch as more than 2½ years elapsed between the date of the alleged conduct and the commencement of the action … , and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not treat with Dr. Chahfe in relation to the 2005 surgery after her final follow-up appointment in 2005, and that she did not return to Dr. Chahfe until 2010. The surgical procedures in 2005 and 2010 were ” discrete and complete’ events that cannot be linked by way of the continuous treatment doctrine” … , and there was no evidence of anticipated further treatment related to the 2005 procedure at the time plaintiff left Dr. Chahfe’s care in 2005 … . Angelhow v Chahfe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05437, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant did not eliminate questions of fact in this traffic accident case about whether the emergency doctrine applied. Defendant was behind plaintiffs’ motorcycle when a vehicle (operated by Buck) ran a stop sign, broadsided a truck (operated by Matthew) which then collided with the motorcycle. There was evidence defendant’s vehicle then struck the motorcycle. Defendant testified she saw the Buck vehicle approaching the stop sign and thought it was going too fast to stop, The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant should have slowed down at that point:

In determining whether the actions of a driver are reasonable in light of an emergency situation, both the driver’s awareness of the situation and his or her actions prior to the occurrence of the emergency must be considered … . Here, defendant’s deposition testimony established that she saw Buck’s car on the access road approaching the stop sign “very, very fast,” “like he was still on the Thruway,” and that she also observed Matthew’s pick-up truck approaching the intersection. Defendant was “very conscious . . . because [she knew] there [were] a lot of accidents that happen on this road because people do not pay attention to the stop sign at that [a]ccess [r]oad,” and she “start[ed] to get nervous” that Buck’s vehicle was moving too fast to stop for the stop sign. Despite defendant’s awareness that the intersection presented a particular danger and her observations of Buck’s vehicle, however, defendant did not slow down, move over, or apply her brakes until after she saw Buck’s vehicle “smash into the truck.” At that point, defendant did not know where the motorcycle was in relation to her minivan. We thus conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant, in taking no evasive action and in making no effort to slow down, or move over, or otherwise attempt to avert the impending collision, responded reasonably under the circumstances … . Gilkerson v Buck, 2019 NY Slip Op 05435, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

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