Battery – Page 5 – New York Appellate Digest

Animal Law, Battery, Civil Rights Law, Immunity, Municipal Law, Negligence

POLICE DOG RELEASED TO TRACK SUSPECTS WENT OUT OF THE HANDLER’S SIGHT AND BIT PLAINTIFF, 42 USC 1983, NEGLIGENCE AND BATTERY ACTIONS SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE OFFICER ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined several causes of action property survived summary judgment in this case where a police officer (Ashe) released his K-9 partner (a trained police dog named Elza) which bit plaintiff as he was walking to his car. After Elza was released she ran out of Ashe’s sight. Ashe was attempting to use Elza to track suspects who had just robbed a gas station. The Third Department held, inter aliia, that the 42 USC 1983 action properly survived summary judgment, Ashe was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the battery action properly survived summary judgment, and the city was entitled to summary judgment on the common-law negligence action based on the professional judgment rule:

There is at least a question of fact as to whether a reasonable police officer, aware that the dog could not differentiate a suspect from an innocent bystander, would allow the dog to search off leash and out of sight of the handler. Moreover, the record contains evidence from which a jury could find that the City “fail[ed] to train its employees in a relevant respect [that] evidences a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants[, which] can . . . be properly thought of as a city policy or custom that is actionable under [42 USC] § 1983” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ expert … opined in his affidavit that Ashe failed to comply with standard police practice, including keeping the K-9 within visual range and providing audible warnings. Based on the foregoing, there are triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on the issue of Ashe’s entitlement to qualified immunity … . …

… [T]he City was entitled to dismissal of the common-law negligence claims based on the professional judgment rule. ” That rule ‘insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions’ … . Relf v City of Troy, 2019 NY Slip Op 01287, Third Dept 2-21-19

February 21, 2019

Battery, Negligence

DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO CONTROL HIS COLLEGE-AGE GRANDSON IN THIS ROAD RAGE INCIDENT, THEREFORE THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, HOWEVER THE AIDING-AND-ABETTING ASSAULT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT GRANDFATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Mancuso’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence cause of action was properly granted, but the motion for summary judgment on the aiding-and-abetting-assault cause of action should not have been granted. The action stemmed from a road rage incident. Defendant Mancuso was driving and his college-age grandson, Vaccaro, was a passenger. The grandson got out of the car and hit plaintiff in the face:

Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not owe a duty to the plaintiff by virtue of the relationship Mancuso had with Vaccaro. The fact that Mancuso could have exercised control over Vaccaro, his college-aged grandson, did not create a duty to do so … . In addition, the mere fact that Vaccaro was a passenger in Mancuso’s vehicle did not create a duty on the part of Mancuso to control Vaccaro’s conduct … . …

To be liable for an assault under an aiding and abetting theory, a defendant must have committed some overt act, either by words or conduct, in furtherance of the assault … . Here, Mancuso established, prima facie, that he did not commit an overt act in furtherance of Vaccaro’s assault on the plaintiff … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Mancuso’s actions preceding the assault constituted an overt act in furtherance of the assault … . McKiernan v Vaccaro, 2019 NY Slip Op 00267, Second Dept 1-16-19

January 16, 2019

Battery, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Law, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Municipal Law

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for permission to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. After criminal charges were dismissed, eight months after the deadline for filing a notice of claim, petitioner sought to bring an action alleging violations of 42 USC 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution. The Second Department found that a notice of claim is not required for the 42 USC 1983 action, the statute of limitations had expired on the assault and battery actions, reports documenting an investigation did not provide the city with timely notice of the essential facts of the claim, the excuse for the delay was not reasonable, and petitioner did not show the city was not prejudiced by the delay:

The branch of the petition which sought leave to serve a late notice of claim to assert, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, violations of the petitioner’s federal civil and constitutional rights, should have been denied as unnecessary… . Such a claim is not subject to the State statutory notice of claim requirement … . …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the relevant state law claims within 90 days after they arose or a reasonable time thereafter. Actual knowledge could not be readily inferred from two reports dated June 18, 2015, documenting an internal investigation conducted by the police department to determine how a firearm was allegedly carried into, and concealed within, the station house, that “a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [City]” against the plaintiff … . Moreover, the mere alleged existence of other police reports and records, without evidence of their content, and the involvement of the City’s police officers in the alleged incident, without more, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City … .

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s incarceration did not constitute such an excuse, since the relevant state law claims did not accrue, and the petitioner’s time to serve a notice of claim did not begin to run, until he was released from custody … . Matter of Nicholson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08134, Second Dept 11-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))//MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

November 28, 2018

Battery, Employment Law, Negligence

EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the employer’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case was properly granted. After an employee (Hartfield) had been asked to leave for the day by the employer, the employee assaulted plaintiff in the parking lot. The doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply because the employee was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the assault:

… [D]efendant established as a matter of law that the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable because Hartfield was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the assault. The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer “vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment”… .. Although the issue whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact, summary judgment is appropriate “in a case such as this, in which the relevant facts are undisputed” … . Here, we conclude that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that Hartfield’s assault of plaintiff was not committed in furtherance of defendant’s business and was not within the scope of employment … . Stribing v Bill Gray’s Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07566, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (NEGLIGENCE, BATTERY, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN SHE ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMPLOYER’S PARKING LOT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

November 9, 2018

Battery, Negligence, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action were property dismissed. Although defendant (Domnitser) may not have intended to strike plaintiff in an altercation with others, the complaint alleged only intentional conduct by the defendant:

Although “the same act may constitute battery or negligence depending on whether or not it was intentional, . . . there cannot be recovery for both”… . As such, “if the only inference that may be drawn from plaintiff’s evidence is that defendant’s contact with plaintiff was intentional, plaintiff may recover only in battery and the issue of negligence should not be submitted to the jury”. Accordingly, “[o]nce intentional offensive contact has been established, the actor is liable for battery, not negligence” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of Domnitser’s intentional acts which were directed toward third parties during the physical altercation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, even if Domnitser lacked any intent to make physical contact with, or otherwise injure, the plaintiff, the conduct attributed to Domnitser in the amended complaint, even as amplified by the plaintiff’s affidavit, constituted intentional, rather than negligent, conduct … . …

“A cause of action to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires a plaintiff to show a breach of a duty owed to him [or her] which unreasonably endangered his [or her] physical safety, or caused him [or her] to fear for his [or her] own safety” … . A negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action “must fail where, as here, [n]o allegations of negligence appear in the pleadings'” … . Borrerro v Haks Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07282, Second Dept 10-31-18

NEGLIGENCE (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BATTERY, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NEGLIGENCE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INJURE PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH OTHERS, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ONLY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT BY THE DEFENDANT, THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

October 31, 2018

Battery, Employment Law, Negligence

INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the MetLife was not vicariously liable for an alleged civil assault and battery by a private investigator, who was deemed to be a subcontractor, not an employee of MetLife:

” The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . ” The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration'” … . However, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the contract between MetLife and Scope provided that Scope’s “affiliates and agents” were “solely personnel of [Scope] and not MetLife,” and that Scope would have “full responsibility for the actions and omissions of all personnel employed by [Scope] or any agents who are involved in performing the Services and for any losses arising therefrom.” The contract likewise contained a clause in which Scope agreed to indemnify MetLife for, inter alia, losses resulting from “negligent or wrongful acts.” Although, as the plaintiffs point out, a rider to the contract sets forth “Minimum Standards” for private investigators employed by Scope, “[t]he requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” … . McHale v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06895, Second Dept 10-17-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (VICARIOUS LIABILITY, (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/VICARIOUS LIABILITY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NEGLIGENCE, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))THIRD PARTY ASSAULT (INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (EMPLOYMENT LAW, INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS DEEMED A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT))

October 17, 2018

Battery, Medical Malpractice, Negligence

COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for battery alleging a medical procedure was performed without her consent:

“It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, in moving under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), defendants attached all of the pleadings, which alleged, inter alia, that defendants “performed a procedure upon the Plaintiff while she was under general anesthesia without informing her or obtaining any consent, which conduct constituted a battery upon her.” Defendants also referenced and provided to the court the informed consent form executed by plaintiff that explicitly authorized the performance of a flexible sigmoidoscopy, but not a colonoscopy. The form further noted in relevant part that, “[i]f any unforeseen condition arises during the procedure calling for, in the physician’s judgment, additional procedures, treatments, or operations, [defendant is] authorize[d] . . . to do whatever he . . . deems advisable.” We conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a cause of action sounding in battery by alleging that she provided no consent to the performance of a colonoscopy … , and that the evidentiary submissions considered by the court, including the consent form, do not “establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” sounding in battery … . McCarthy v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 04887, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))

June 28, 2018

Battery, Medical Malpractice, Negligence, Public Health Law

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined several distinct issues (not all summarized here) that arose from a lawsuit alleging the defendant doctors and hospital performed a c-section birth against plaintiff’s wishes. The cause of action based upon defendants’ performing an unwanted procedure alleged an intentional tort and, based upon the one-year statute of limitations, was untimely. The Public Health Law cause of action was not appropriate because those statutes and regulations do not apply to hospitals (as opposed to residential health care facilities):

… [I]t is clear from the statutory scheme that Public Health Law § 2803-c was not intended to apply to hospitals.

Public Health Law § 2801-d authorizes a private right of action by patients of “residential health care facilities” for the violation of rights enumerated in Public Health Law § 2803-c. “Residential health care facility” is defined by the statute as “a nursing home or facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801[3]). Since the hospital is not a “residential health care facility,” this provision is not applicable to the hospital … . The fact that the legislature did not specify that a private right of action was available against hospitals indicates that providing a private right of action to hospital patients was contrary to the legislative scheme. Therefore, no private right of action under the Public Health Law should be inferred … . Dray v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02314, Second Dept 4-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))

April 4, 2018

Battery, Civil Procedure, Negligence

DISMISSAL OF INTENTIONAL TORT CAUSES OF ACTION PRECLUDED SUBSEQUENT ACTION SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, NO NEGLIGENT ASSAULT IN NEW YORK.

The Second Department noted that New York does not recognize an action for negligent assault. Plaintiff’s intentional tort causes stemming from an arrest by a security guard were dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff then brought suit under a negligence theory:

“[U]nder New York’s transactional analysis approach to res judicata, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Here, the purported negligence cause of action asserted in the plaintiff’s second action arose from the same operative facts as the dismissed intentional tort claims, and could have been raised in the first action. Accordingly, in view of the previous litigation between the parties, the Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of that cause of action on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the negligence cause of action on the additional ground that the allegations in support of it failed to state a cause of action. The allegations that Doe physically injured the plaintiff while restraining and arresting him did not transform the plaintiff’s time-barred cause of action alleging assault into a timely cause of action alleging negligence, as New York does not recognize a cause of action to recover for negligent assault … . Johnson v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02410, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

March 29, 2017

Battery

BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM KICKBALL GAME SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Second Department determined defendants did not eliminate questions of fact whether infant defendant intentionally pushed infant plaintiff to the ground during a kickball game. The battery cause of action was therefore not precluded (as a matter of law) by the doctrine of assumption of the risk:

“To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature” … . Contrary to the appellants’ contention, they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the bodily contact between the infant defendant and the infant plaintiff was intentional or offensive … . The appellants also failed to establish, prima facie, that the complaint was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. While a participant in a sporting activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation, the participant is not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others … . Dimisa v Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 04172, 2nd Dept 6-1-16

INTENTIONAL TORTS (BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM KICKBALL GAME SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW)/BATTERY (BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM KICKBALL GAME SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM KICKBALL GAME SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION AS A MATTER OF LAW)

June 1, 2016