You are here: / Immunity
, , ,

HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED A CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE STATE ASSUMES A DUTY OF PROTECTION AGAINST HARM FOR A CHILD IN ITS CUSTODY; THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE STATE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY, OVER AND ABOVE THAT OWED THE GENERAL PUBLIC (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, over a concurrence, determined the complaint in this Child Victims Act action alleging sexual abuse while under the care of the state should not have been dismissed. The issue was whether the complaint must allege a special duty owed by the government to the plaintiff. The Third Department found that a special duty need not be alleged to survive a motion to dismiss under the facts alleged:

A cause of action for negligence requires proof that defendant owed the claimant a legally recognized duty, that “defendant breached that duty and that such breach was a proximate cause of an injury suffered by the [claimant]” … . That said, “an agency of government is not liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function unless there existed a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . “A special duty can arise in three situations: (1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted; (2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or (3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Claimant does not dispute that he has not pleaded one of those three bases for a special duty, instead contending that he was not required to so plead because he was in OCFS’s [Office of Children’s and Family Services’] custody.

We agree. Mindful that our review requires us to determine “whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory” … , claimant’s failure to plead a special duty is not fatal to the extent his claim alleges negligence in the performance of obligations stemming from OCFS’s custody of him during his placement at the Schenectady facility … . When a government entity assumes custody of a person, thus diminishing that person’s ability to self-protect or access those usually charged with such protection, that entity owes to that person a duty of protection against harms that are reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances … . The duty of protection is coextensive with the entity’s “physical custody of and control” of the person, terminating at the point the person passes out of the “orbit of [the entity’s] authority” … . Thus, we have held that “[a] governmental foster care agency is under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision,” including “negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home” … . A.J. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04231, Third Dept 8-15-24

Practice Point; When the state assumes custody of a child, it owes the child a duty of protection against harm. Under the facts of this case, the plaintiff was not required to alleged the state owed a special duty to the plaintiff.

 

, , ,

THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC CAN BE BASED ON THE OVERALL STRAIN ON THE OVERWHELMED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MED MAL CASE MAY DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS THE CASE PROGRESSES, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined defendants in this med mal case were not entitled to dismissal of the complaint based upon the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDPTA) during the COVID pandemic. The plaintiff-patient, who did not have COVID, fell near his hospital bed and suffered a brain injury. After he fell, and before he suffered any symptoms of the injury from the fall, he was examined by two doctors. The doctors were not made aware of the fall. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint at the outset of the case based on the EDPTA, noting that the immunity conferred by the statute was based upon the overall strain placed on the healthcare system by the pandemic. The Second Department determined that, although the defendants may be able to demonstrate their entitlement to immunity as the case progresses, they did not demonstrate entitlement to immunity as a matter of law such that the complaint should be dismissed at the outset:

… [O]f the three conditions imposed by former Public Health Law § 3082(1), there is no question that defendants were arranging for or providing health care services as per the statute, and were doing so in good faith. The parties’ dispute distills to whether defendants established, conclusively, that “the treatment of [plaintiff was] impacted by [defendants’] decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak” (former Public Health Law § 3082[1][b]). * * *

A statute conferring immunity must be strictly construed … , and a party seeking its protections “must conform strictly with its conditions” … . In this regard, we note that only minimal discovery had been conducted at the time the motion was made, and that the applicability of the defense, itself, requires a fact-intensive inquiry. Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture … . Holder v Jacob, 2024 NY Slip Op 03864, First Dept 7-18-24

Practice Point: Healthcare providers may be entitled to statutory immunity during the COVID pandemic. Here the defendants were unable to demonstrate entitlement to immunity as a matter of law such that the med mal complaint should be dismissed. But they may be able demonstrate entitlement to immunity as the case progresses.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AT JFK AIRPORT, OWNED BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ, BY A FORKLIFT WHICH WAS BACKING UP; THE FACT THAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS WERE OPTIONAL WAS NOT A DESIGN DEFECT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ALLEGING FAILURE TO INSPECT THE FORKLIFT, CRITERIA EXLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this forklift-accident case, determined the fact that the rear-view mirrors for the forklift were optional was not a design defect, and the landlord, the Port Authority, was immune from the negligence action alleging a failure to properly inspect the forklift:

… Unicarriers [defendant forklift manufacturer] established … the plaintiff’s employer was thoroughly knowledgeable about forklifts and knew that mirrors were available, since it maintained more than 100 forklifts in operation in New York, and the brochure for the forklift listed rearview mirrors as an optional feature. Unicarriers also established that the forklift was not unreasonably dangerous without backup mirrors and that the plaintiff’s employer was in the best position to balance the benefits and the risks of not having mirrors on the forklift … . * * *

… [T]he Port Authority established, prima facie, that its alleged failure to properly inspect the forklift and its issuance of a Port Authority license plate were governmental functions. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the forklift inspections performed by the Port Authority and the issuance of the license plate were an exercise of the Port Authority’s police power for the protection and safety of the public rather than any authority conferred by a landlord-tenant relationship … . The actions of the Port Authority did not create a special duty toward the plaintiff because the inspections were designed to protect public safety rather than the safety of particular individuals … . Strassburger v Unicarriers Ams. Corps., 2024 NY Slip Op 01742, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: Here in this forklift accident case, the fact that rear-view mirrors were optional was not a designe defect. The relevant criteria are explained.

Practice Point: Here the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the landlord for JFK Airport, was exercising a governmental function when inspecting the forklift and therefore was immune from suit, criteria explained.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to defendants’ hospital with COVID-19 and died from COVID-19. Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [P]laintiff alleges that the decedent was diagnosed with COVID-19 after arriving at Elmhurst Hospital on March 30, 2020, and that he died from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The defendants’ submissions, including the complaint and the transcript of the plaintiff’s hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the EDTPA (see Public Health Law former § 3082 …). As the complaint makes no allegations that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted willful or intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, none of the exceptions to the immunity provisions of EDTPA apply (see Public Health Law former § 3082[2]). Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00186, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The defendants in the medical malpractice, wrongful death action are immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the hospital with COVID and died from COVID.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY POLICE OFFICERS; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE ASSAULT AND BATTERY IS INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT; THE IMMUNITY AFFORDED POLICE OFFICERS RE: ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXTENDS ONLY TO “OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE” CONDUCT; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE POLICE CONDUCT WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the county based upon the alleged assault and battery of plaintiff by police officers should have been dismissed. Assault and battery stem from intentional, not negligent, acts. The assault and battery allegations properly survived summary judgment, however:

… [T]he defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action alleging negligence by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, in which she testified that a police officer grabbed her, picked her up, and threw her to the ground, causing her injuries. Where, as here, intentional offensive conduct has been established, the actor may be found liable for assault or battery, but not negligence … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of her alleged injuries were caused by unintentional conduct … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence.

However, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging assault and battery. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on state law claims if their actions are “objectively reasonable” … . The determination of whether a use of force was objectively reasonable is an “intensely factual” question “best left for a jury to decide” … . Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the police officer’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Pleva v County of Suffolk, 2023 NY Slip Op 06394, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Allegations of intentional conduct, here assault and battery, will not support a negligence cause of action.

Practice Point: Police officers have immunity which will protect them from allegations of assault and battery, but only if the police conduct was “objectively reasonable” (a question of fact).

 

, , ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which conferred immunity on nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, precluded the COVID-related negligence action against defendant nursing home. The Third Department ruled that the repeal of the EDTPA should not be applied retroactively. Therefore the statute was in effect at the relevant time. The Third Department further held that the evidence of proper COVID-19 precautions offered by the nursing home was not refuted by the plaintiff:

… [T]he ultimate repeal of the EDTPA contained no express indicator of retroactivity — rather, the Legislature simply stated that the repeal would “take effect immediately” … . * * *

Turning to plaintiff’s argument that retroactivity is appropriate because the repeal was remedial in nature, “[c]lassifying a statute as ‘remedial’ does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . Based upon all of the foregoing, and noting that the retroactive application of the repeal of the EDTPA would merely punish healthcare providers “for past conduct they cannot change — an objective [that has been] deemed illegitimate as a justification for retroactivity” … we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive … . Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06180, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) should not be applied retroactively to remove immunity related to COVID precautions conferred on a nursing home during the life of the statute.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was immune from a lawsuit stemming from a COVID-19-related death pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services” as long as three conditions were met: the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and the services were arranged or provided in good faith … . The health care services covered by the immunity provision included those related to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19; the assessment or care of an individual with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19; and the care of any other individual who presented at a health care facility or to a health care professional during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration … . Mera v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04975, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), the defendant health care facility was immune from a lawsuit premised upon admission, treatment and death from COVID-19.

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE COUNTY’S NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF WHILE SHE WAS IN FOSTER CARE; THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO SOCIAL SERVICES LAW 419 IS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint adequately alleged the defendant county knew or should have known of plaintiff’s foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care:

“[C]ounties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home” … . “In order to find that a child care agency breached its duty to adequately supervise the children entrusted to its care, a plaintiff must establish that the agency had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … .

Here, the complaint, which asserted that the abuse was foreseeable, inter alia, because the County knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the foster father’s propensity to engage in the sexual abuse of children, sufficiently alleged that the County had notice of the dangerous conduct at issue such that the abuse could reasonably have been anticipated … . Moreover, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the County was negligent in failing to ensure that proper safeguards were in place so as to ensure the safety of the plaintiff in the foster home … .

… [T]he County was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care … . Grabowski v Orange County, 2023 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victim’s Act case, the complaint adequately alleged the county knew or should have known of her foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity in Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care.

 

, ,

THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY FUNCTION OF MAINTAINING ROADS; IN THE ABSENCE OF A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE RISKS OF A HIGHWAY DESIGN, THE CITY IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the city in this intersection traffic accident case was not entitled to governmental function immunity or qualified immunity. Plaintiff motorcyclist alleged the city, during roadway construction, had removed roadway markings and signs creating confusion for drivers and contributing to the accident:

The City is not entitled to governmental function immunity, as it was engaged in the proprietary function of maintaining the roadways at the time of the accident … . Nor is the City entitled to qualified immunity, given the absence of any evidence in the record that a study of the risks involved had been conducted … . Floricic v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00055, First Dept 1-10-23

Practice Point: In this intersection traffic accident case there was a question of fact whether the city’s removal of traffic markings and signs during construction was a proximate cause of the accident. Roadwork is a proprietary function so the city was not entitled to governmental function immunity. There was no study of roadway design so the city was not entitled to qualified immunity.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined qualified immunity protected plaintiff’s supervisors in this hostile-work-environment action under 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law against the City of Albany and individual city employees. Plaintiff alleged a co-worker named Tierney made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a period of two years. The allegations against Tierney properly survived summary judgment, but the allegations against the defendants who played no role in the harassment, alleging supervisory inaction, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff had worked as a civilian dispatcher in the police department:

In the 42 USC § 1983 context, liability of an individual defendant is based on his or her “personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation” … . Individual defendant liability only attaches when his or her own conduct is sufficiently severe and pervasive to create the hostile work environment; otherwise, that defendant is protected by qualified immunity … . * * *

Under state law, public officials are protected by qualified immunity for discretionary acts that are unlawful under the Human Rights Law unless “they are undertaken in bad faith or without reasonable basis” … . Hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law are evaluated under the same severe-or-pervasive standard as a claim brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … .* * *

Although individual liability under 42 USC § 1983 may flow from a supervisor’s inaction in the face of known harassment … , the alleged individual inaction … did not suffice to create the hostile work environment … .

We reach the same conclusion … under the Human Rights Law, pursuant to which supervisors may be held individually liable to the extent that they aided and abetted conduct creating a hostile work environment (see Executive Law § 296 [6]). … [D]efendants[] … did not actively participate in the conduct creating the hostile work environment as required under the aiding-and-abetting provision … .

Even if plaintiff’s Human Rights Law claim against them could proceed under a supervisory inaction theory, we would conclude that they are shielded by qualified immunity. … . Mahoney v City of Albany, 2022 NY Slip Op 07288, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff and defendants were city employees. Plaintiff alleged one employee made sexually inappropriate comments to her over a two year period. Supervisory inaction was the basis for the action against other defendants. The Third Department held the “supervisory-inaction” defendants were protected from suit by qualified immunity as a matter of law under both 42 USC 1983 and the NYS Human Rights Law. There were questions of fact about whether the employee who made the comments was protected by qualified immunity.

 

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy