You are here: / Battery
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, , , ,

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined the Social Services Law did not create a private right of action for the inappropriate use of physical restraints. The complaint alleged infant plaintiff, a person with special needs, was injured by the hospital defendants:

[The] causes of action alleged assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, violation of a section of Social Services Law article 11, violation of Civil Rights Law § 79-n, and negligence. The two causes of action alleging violation of Social Services Law article 11 were the fifth and sixth causes of action. In these causes of action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants committed physical abuse and deliberate inappropriate use of physical restraints as defined in Social Services Law § 493(4)(b). * * *

A legislative intent to create a private right of action for alleged violation of article 11 of the Social Services Law is not fairly implied in these statutory provisions and their legislative history. Finding such a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. The Protection of People with Special Needs Act, generally, and article 11 of the Social Services Law, specifically, “already contain[ ] substantial enforcement mechanisms”… . These mechanisms in the Act include the creation of the Justice Center, the “central agency responsible for managing and overseeing the incident reporting system, and for imposing or delegating corrective action” … . These mechanisms in article 11 include the maintenance of a statewide vulnerable persons’ central register to accept, investigate, and respond to allegations of abuse or neglect; the delineation of possible findings and consequences in connection with an investigation of abuse or neglect allegations, along with procedures for amending and appealing substantiated abuse or neglect reports; and the maintenance of a register of subjects found to have a substantiated category one abuse or neglect case. The substantial enforcement mechanisms “indicat[e] that the legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . Joseph v Nyack Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07042, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

/by
, , , , ,

UNDER THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI ANALYSIS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 42 USC 1983, FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment on the 42 USC 1983, false arrest, assault and battery causes of action should not have been granted. Under the Aguilar-Spinelli analysis, there were questions of fact about the existence of probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest:

“The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to a cause of action alleging false arrest, including a cause of action asserted pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to recover damages for the deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law that is the federal-law equivalent of a state common-law false arrest cause of action” … . “However, [w]hen an arrest is made without a warrant, as here, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and the burden of proving justification is cast upon the defendant” … . Where the arrest was made without a prior judicial determination of probable cause, and where the arresting officer’s alleged probable cause is based on hearsay, probable cause is properly evaluated under the Aguilar-Spinelli test … . Under the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, where, as here, probable cause is predicated upon the hearsay statement of an informant, the proponent of the hearsay statement “must demonstrate that the informant is reliable and that the informant had a sufficient basis for his or her knowledge” … . Here the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to the existence of probable cause for the arrest. The existence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the police evaluations at issue, such as the evaluation of probable cause to arrest and requisite suspicion to perform a strip search, were objectively reasonable precludes an award of summary judgment … on the ground of qualified immunity … .

“To sustain a cause of action to recover damages for assault, there must be proof of physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature” … . A claim predicated on assault and battery may be based upon contact during an unlawful arrest … . Here, the defendants’ failure to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful precluded an award of summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action, which alleged assault and battery … . Cayruth v City of Mount Vernon, 2020 NY Slip Op 07027, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

/by
, , , ,

THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s allegation the defendant doctors derotated her pelvis (a chiropractic procedure) during spine fusion surgery sounded in battery, not medical malpractice, because the claim alleged intentional, not negligent, conduct. Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. Plaintiff’s expert, a chiropractor, was not qualified to offer an opinion about the surgery performed by the defendants:

… [A]ny claim that defendants derotated plaintiff’s pelvis as a separate procedure from the surgery to which she consented is necessarily an allegation that they acted intentionally. Despite the fact that plaintiff’s complaint alleges only negligence, “when a patient agrees to treatment for one condition and is subjected to a procedure related to a completely different condition, there can be no question but that the deviation from the consent given was intentional” … . As such, this claim is subject to the one-year statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery — that is, “intentional physical contact with another person without that person’s consent” — rather than the 2½-year period applicable to medical malpractice claims … . Young v Sethi, 2020 NY Slip Op 06330, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

/by
, , , ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST FOR THE CHARGED CRIMES OR FOR ANY UNCHARGED CRIMES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery action should not have been granted because defendants did not demonstrate as a matter of law that there was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. When plaintiff flagged down the police he told the police he had been shot and had the drug dealer’s weapon on his person which he immediately surrendered:

… [D]efendants failed to establish prima facie that they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for criminal possession of a weapon or firearm … , which is the lynchpin to plaintiff’s claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery … , as well as the arresting officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity … . While “the police are not obligated to pursue every lead that may yield evidence beneficial to the accused, even though they had knowledge of the lead and the capacity to investigate it” … , plaintiff’s claim that he temporarily lawfully possessed the gun at issue after an alleged altercation with a drug dealer who attempted to rob him was not merely a lead. Rather, as soon as plaintiff flagged down the officers, he told them that he had been shot and volunteered that he had the drug dealer’s gun on his person, which he immediately surrendered.

Assuming, without deciding, that defendants could meet their prima facie burden by identifying probable cause to arrest plaintiff for an uncharged crime or offense … , they failed to do so. Specifically, defendants have not established probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass … , since there is no evidence that plaintiff knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the basement where his altercation with the drug dealer took place. Nor did they establish probable cause to arrest plaintiff for attempted criminal possession of marijuana … or attempted unlawful possession of marijuana in the first degree … , since there is no evidence as to the quantity of marijuana that plaintiff allegedly attempted to possess. Finally, defendants failed to establish prima facie probable cause to arrest and detain plaintiff to the extent that they did for attempted unlawful possession of marijuana in the second degree … , since, had they so charged him, they only would have been permitted to issue a desk appearance ticket … . Idelfonso v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05854, First Dept 10-20-20

 

/by
,

THE MANAGER OF PLAINTIFF BAR PUSHED A MAN DOWN A SET OF STAIRS CAUSING FATAL INJURIES; THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXCLUSION IN DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED AND THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE BAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the assault and battery insurance policy exclusion applied and the insurer was not obligated to defend the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. The manager at plaintiff bar had pushed a man down a set of stairs, causing fatal injuries. The manager pled guilty to manslaughter:

Generally, an insurer is “required to provide a defense unless it can demonstrate that the allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and, further, that the allegations, in toto, are subject to no other interpretation” … . …

… [A]ll of the claims against plaintiffs in the underlying action are ” ‘based on’ ” or arise out of the bar manager’s assault, “without which [the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action] would have no cause of action” … . In other words, “no cause of action would exist but for the assault” and, therefore, the assault and battery exclusion is applicable and precludes coverage … . …

… [A] determination on this issue need not await discovery in the personal injury action. The analysis of whether an exclusion applies “depends on the facts which are pleaded, not the conclusory assertions” contained in the underlying complaint … . “[T]he allegations of the complaint [in the underlying personal injury action] cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and . . . the allegations, in toto, are subject to no other interpretation” … . Even if it were learned during discovery that there was a defect with respect to the stairs, the fact remains that, but for the bar manager’s assault, decedent would not have fallen down the stairs. NHJB, Inc. v Utica First Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05319, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

/by
, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY AND VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action against police officers for assault, battery and violation of 42 USC 1983:

The allegations in the complaint, as amplified by the notice of claim, which must be liberally construed when determining a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion … sufficiently set forth a claim for assault and battery. Plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted and battered by police during his arrest and suffered injuries that required hospital treatment. Plaintiff specified the location of the assault and stated that defendants committed the assault and battery knowingly, that the arrest was without probable cause and that he was not ultimately charged with a crime. Moreover, in the notice of claim, plaintiff alleged that he was “grabbed, had his arms twisted and forcefully handcuffed,” that he was physically abused and that he did not resist arrest.

“To plead a cause of action to recover damages for assault, a plaintiff must allege intentional physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . “A valid claim for battery exists where a person intentionally touches another without that person’s consent” … .

… [A] party may allege assault and battery as the basis for a suit under 42 USC § 1983 … . Corcoran v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05133, First Dept 9-29-20

 

/by
,

PLAINTIFF’S HOMEOWNER’S POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR INTENTIONAL ACTS; THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY PLAINTIFF ON HIS NEIGHBOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not obligated to defend plaintiff (pursuant to plaintiff’s homeowner’s policy) because the injuries stemmed from an apparent assault by plaintiff on his neighbor (Salerno) and therefore involved intentional, not negligent, acts. The policy excluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts. Salerno sued plaintiff in tort:

In assessing whether a policy exclusion for injuries ” intentionally caused’ ” by the insured applies, a court must look to the pleadings in the underlying action and “limit [its] examination to the nature of the conduct [of the insured] as it is there described” … . The “analysis depends on the facts which are pleaded, not conclusory assertions” … . When a complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that an assault was committed negligently, an insurer has no duty to defend where the insured does not provide “evidentiary support for the conclusory characterization of [the] conduct as negligent or provide an explanation of how the intrinsically intentional act[] of assault . . . could be negligently performed” … . An insured may not “exalt form over substance by labeling [an underlying tort] action as one to recover damages for negligence” where the conduct is inherently intentional … .

Here, the second cause of action in the Salerno complaint contains no more than a conclusory characterization of plaintiff’s conduct as negligent without any supporting factual allegations. Thus, the complaint in the underlying action does not contain sufficient allegations of negligence to avoid the policy exclusion … . Scalzo v Central Co-op. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04639, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/by
,

TEACHER’S LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENTS ALLEGED INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-teacher’s suit against two students alleged intentional conduct (battery), not negligent conduct, and was therefore time-barred. Plaintiff was pushed into a locker by the students who were fighting each other. Although the students did not intend to touch the teacher, the doctrine of transferred intent applied:

Defendant met her initial burden by establishing that plaintiff was injured as a result of intentional conduct that constituted a battery and not negligent conduct … . “A valid claim for battery exists where a person intentionally touches another without that person’s consent” … . ” The intent required for battery is intent to cause a bodily contact that a reasonable person would find offensive’; there is no requirement that the contact be intended to cause harm’ ” … . The deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendants submitted in support of the motion established that defendants intentionally caused offensive bodily contact with each other by engaging in a physical fight … . Although defendants did not intend to make physical contact with or to injure plaintiff, the contact that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries was nevertheless intentional under the doctrine of “transferred intent” … . …

Defendant thus established that this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts … .  Kessel v Adams, 2020 NY Slip Op 01758, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

/by
, , ,

CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the City of Buffalo’s ruling that petitioner police officer was not entitled to defense and indemnification by the City in an action against the officer alleging use of excessive force. The facts were described in the dissent as follows: “Numerous Buffalo police officers, including Officer Corey Krug, were deployed to keep order at Chippewa Street, a popular location for late-night drunken revelry. In the course of doing his job, a 30-second excerpt of a video filmed by a local TV station crew shows Officer Krug performing his duties with what appears to be excessive force: asking an unarmed young man, Devin Ford, why he returned to the area, throwing him onto the hood of a car, striking him in the leg several times with a baton and stopping only when another officer saw the incident and told him to stop. Criminal charges were filed against Officer Krug for the use of excessive force, and Mr. Ford filed a civil suit against him.” The Court of Appeals upheld the determination that Officer Krug was not acting within the scope of his employment when he dealt with Mr. Ford:

Given the narrow question before us and under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say that the City’s determination was “irrational or arbitrary and capricious”… . Insofar as the record supports the City’s conclusion that petitioner was not “acting within the scope of his public employment” under Buffalo City Code § 35-28 because his conduct constituted “intentional wrongdoing” and violated the City’s rules regarding the use of force, the City’s determination was not “taken without regard to the facts” … . Matter of Krug v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08546, CtApp 11-26-19

 

/by
, ,

BRUTAL, UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CLAIMANT, AN INMATE, BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE NO RELATION TO THE DUTIES OF A CORRECTION OFFICER; THEREFORE THE ATTACK WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IS NOT LIABLE UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the state’s motion for summary judgment in this assault and battery action by an inmate was properly granted. Claimant was brutally beaten, without cause, by three correction officers and sued the state under a respondeat superior, vicarious liability theory.  The Court of Appeals held the state had demonstrated the officers were not acting within the scope of their employment when they assaulted the claimant:

Correction officers are authorized to use physical force against inmates in limited circumstances not present here, such as in self-defense or to suppress a revolt (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a], [b]). DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise “[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment” in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary (7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]). To be sure, correction officers at times use excessive force. Such conduct will not fall outside the scope of employment merely because it violates department rules or policies or crosses the line of sanctioned conduct. Under our multi-factored common-law test for determining respondeat superior liability, an employee’s deviation from directions or governing standards is only one consideration in the analysis. Here, the gratuitous and utterly unauthorized use of force was so egregious as to constitute a significant departure from the normal methods of performance of the duties of a correction officer as a matter of law. This was a malicious attack completely divorced from the employer’s interests.

Further, there is no evidence in the record that DOCCS should — or could — have reasonably anticipated such a flagrant and unjustified use of force, in which, assisted by other officers who immobilized and handcuffed claimant, Wehby [the primary assailant] repeatedly punched and kicked him during a prolonged assault, removing claimant’s protective helmet in order to facilitate more direct blows to his head. As such, based on the uncontested facts, it is evident that claimant’s injuries were not caused by actions taken within the scope of employment and thus, there were no triable issues of fact as to the State’s vicarious liability for assault and battery. Rivera v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08521, Ct App 11-25-19

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy