You are here: / Negligence
, ,

IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dental malpractice action, determine there were questions of fact about (1) the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations, (2) the deviation from the standard of care, and (3) the lack of informed consent:

The instant case does not involve gaps in treatment longer than the 2½-year statute of limitations … , and “a discharge by a physician [or dentist] does not preclude application of the continuous treatment toll if the patient timely initiates a return visit to complain about and seek further treatment for conditions related to the earlier treatment” … . …

… [B]y submitting the affidavits of her experts, plaintiff raised issues of fact whether defendants deviated from the standard of care and whether such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact whether she would have opted for extraction of several teeth and placement of implants had she been fully informed … . Bellamy v Baron, 2021 NY Slip Op 00953, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

,

THE POLICE REMOVED PLAINTIFF’S BOYFRIEND FROM PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES THREE TIMES TELLING PLAINTIFF HE WOULD NOT COME BACK AND SHE WILL BE OKAY; THEN HER BOYFRIEND THREW HER OUT A THIRD FLOOR WINDOW; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY; THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no special relationship had been created between the plaintiff and the city stemming from police officers’ telling plaintiff that her former boyfriend (Gaskin) would be removed from the premises and would not be back. The police responded to plaintiff’s calls when Gaskin showed up three times. On the next occasion, Gaskin threw plaintiff out of a third floor window:

“When a cause of action alleging negligence is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality is exercising a governmental function, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the municipality owed a special duty to the injured person” … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where the plaintiff belongs to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted, or where the municipality voluntarily assumes a duty to the plaintiff beyond what is owed to the public generally … . A municipality will be held to have voluntarily assumed a duty or special relationship with a party where there is: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by establishing that no special relationship existed between them and the plaintiff … . Specifically, the defendants established, prima facie, that the officers made no promise to arrest Gaskin, and the plaintiff could not justifiably rely on vague assurances by the officers that she would “be okay” and that Gaskin would not be returning to the building where both he and the plaintiff lived … . Howell v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00840, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, ,

THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lack of informed consent cause of action should not have been dismissed in this dental malpractice action:

To establish a cause of action for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits associated with the treatment, and the alternatives thereto, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed under similar circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury (see Public Health Law § 2805-d …). “The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … .

Here, although the injured plaintiff signed a consent form, the defendants submitted in support of their motion, inter alia, a transcript of the injured plaintiff’s deposition, during which she testified that the defendants never explained the risks of the tooth extraction or whether there were any alternatives … . Xiao Yan Ye v Din Lam, 2021 NY Slip Op 00895, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, , ,

CVS, A DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT CVS’S PROVIDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WITH THE WRONG DOSAGE OF MEDICINE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the jury should not have heard evidence that CVS mistakenly gave plaintiff a double dose of a drug. CVS was a defendant but successfully moved for summary judgment prior to the trial:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in permitting the jury to hear evidence that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (hereinafter CVS), mistakenly gave the decedent a double dose of digoxin, and testimony from [defendant] Manvar that the double dose of digoxin predisposed the decedent to an arrhythmia that caused his cardiac arrest. CVS, a defendant in this action, was awarded summary judgment based on its argument that its error in giving the decedent a double dose of digoxin was not a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s cardiac arrest. As summary judgment is the “functional equivalent” of a trial, the court should have precluded [defendants] Huppert and Manvar from presenting evidence at trial that CVS’s negligence may have been a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s cardiac arrest … . Raineri v Lalani, 2021 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-10-21

 

, , ,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S DECEDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE CAR ACCIDENT EVEN IF THE PROPER W BEAM AS OPPOSED TO THE IMPROPER BOX BEAM HAD BEEN ERECTED AS A BARRIER ACROSS THE CLOSED BRIDGE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IMPROPERLY APPLIED A “BUT FOR” STANDARD OF CAUSATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim on the ground that claimant’s decedent would have been killed in the car crash even if the barrier the car struck was a proper W beam as opposed to an improper steel box beam. The beams were erected across a closed bridge and claimant’s decedent was a passenger in the convertible which struck and passed under the box beams at both ends of the bridge. The dissenters argued that, upon remittal after a reversal in the first appeal, the Court of Claims was called upon to determine if the box beam was a dangerous condition which was a proximate cause in aggravating the injuries and did not do so. The dissenters noted that claimant’s decedent’s head injuries occurred when the car passed under the second box beam and he survived for 18 hours after the accident:

… [W]e remitted the matter to the Court of Claims to determine “whether the steel box beam was a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death” … . …

… [W]e conclude that a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s determination that the steel box beam was not a substantial factor in aggravating decedent’s injuries and causing his death. Claimant’s witnesses testified with respect to the type of barrier that defendants were required to use to block access to the bridge, i.e., a W-beam. Claimant also presented evidence that decedent’s impact with a W-beam would have led to the same result, i.e., a fatality.

FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]he majority improperly elected to apply a “but for” standard of causation, rather than considering whether the negligence was a proximate cause of injury. In our view, applying a “but for” causation standard “would relieve from liability a negligent actor if the same harm might have been sustained had the actor not been negligent; yet the law is clear that that fact may be considered in fixing damages but does not relieve from liability” …  . Reames v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

IN THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, A MUNICIPALITY MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE NEED ONLY SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION EVEN WHERE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THE MUNICIPALITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; HERE AN ONLINE COMPLAINT DID NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT; EVIDENCE A MUNICIPAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) disagreeing with the Second Department, a municipality moving for summary judgment in a slip and fall case need only show it did not receive written notice of the dangerous condition and need not affirmatively show it did not create the dangerous condition even if alleged in the complaint; (2) if the lack of written notice is demonstrated the burden shifts to plaintiff to show the municipality created the condition; (3) the written notice requirement is not necessarily satisfied by an online (CityLine) complaint; and (4) plaintiff raised a question of fact whether a municipal contractor created the dangerous condition. Plaintiff was injured when his bicycle went into a pavement cutout concealed by a puddle:

… [D]efendant met its initial burden by submitting the affidavit of its commissioner of public works establishing that he did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition in the street as required by its prior notification law … . As a result, the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the requisite written notice or, as relevant here, the applicability of the affirmative negligence exception … . …

… [As] CityLine complaints were simply received by complaint investigators and routed through a computer system to the appropriate department, and … such complaints were stored solely in the electronic file on the computer system, there is no indication in the record that such complaints were actually given to the commissioner of public works as required by the prior notification law … . …

… [T]here is circumstantial evidence that defendant created the defect through its contractor’s actions and, thus, a triable issue of fact whether the affirmative negligence exception applies … . Horst v City of Syracuse, 2021 NY Slip Op 00708, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, after a plaintiff’s verdict at trial, the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff tripped over the footing of a traffic signal pole (the pole had been removed). The city demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition. Therefore the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that the city created the condition. The city submitted documents showing that the removal of the pole was part of a private construction project over which the city exercised no control:

The City did not receive notice of the project’s completion or when and by whom the traffic signals were removed. Trudeau [Chief Supervisor of the Traffic Engineering Division of the Albany Police Department] testified that the City did not oversee the development project because it was a private project, and he was not aware of when the traffic signals were removed or who removed them. We note that, contrary to Supreme Court’s decision, the City’s failure to inspect the sidewalk is an omission that does not constitute affirmative negligence that excuses compliance with the prior written notice requirement … . By failing to present any proof that the City received written notice of the defect or of an affirmative act taken by the City that immediately resulted in the defective condition of the sidewalk, plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact as to the exception to the prior written notice requirement … . Vnuk v City of Albany, 2021 NY Slip Op 00600, Third Dept 2-4-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A POLICE OFFICER SUFFERING FROM BIPOLAR DISORDER, COMMITTED SUICIDE; THE ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY; ALTHOUGH THE FACTS SUPPORTED AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta. determined plaintiff’s decedent (Benitez), a police officer who committed suicide, was disabled by bipolar disorder and was entitled to accommodation under the state and city Human Rights Law. However, because the estate brought a wrongful death action, and did not allege Human Rights Law discrimination causes of action, the complaint was properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiff conceded that this case “ha[d] been primarily brought on a claim of negligence,” that it had not interposed separate statutory causes of action, and that “this [wa]s a negligence c[ase], not a c[ase] based on discriminatory practices.” …

Inasmuch as plaintiff did not raise any Human Rights Law violations for failure to accommodate, we are constrained to affirm … . Supreme Court correctly concluded that defendants did not owe Benitez a duty to prevent him from committing suicide. A defendant owes such a duty where it is either “a facility such as a hospital or jail which is in actual physical custody of an individual” or “an institution or mental health professional with sufficient expertise to detect suicidal tendencies and with the control necessary to care for the person’s well-being” … . Here, defendants had neither “actual physical custody” of the decedent nor “the control necessary to care for [his] well-being” before his suicide … . Furthermore, a defendant only breaches its duty to prevent a decedent’s suicide when it “fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably foreseeable suicide … ,” and there is no evidence in this case that the decedent’s suicide was “reasonably foreseeable” … .

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the NYPD failed to accommodate Benitez under, among other statutes, the City Human Rights Law (City HRL). However, plaintiff improperly raises elements of disability discrimination in the context of a wrongful death action. Benitez v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 00617, First Dept 2-4-21

 

,

AFTER TWICE ADMITTING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR ANSWER TO DENY OWNERSHIP AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants, after twice acknowledging ownership of the area of plaintiff’s slip and fall, should not have been allowed to amend their answer to deny ownership after the statute of limitations had run

[Defendants] may not amend their answer in this manner after the statute of limitations has expired; the amendment would be too prejudicial to plaintiff … . Jackson v 170 W. End Ave. Owners Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00625, First Dept 2-4-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS SMALL, THE AREA WAS DARKENED BY SCAFFOLDING; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was evidence the defect in the sidewalk, although small, may not have been visible because scaffolding covered the sidewalk. In addition, defendants’ expert did not inspect the sidewalk until 3 1/2 years after the accident (after repairs had been made):

Defendants and the motion court relied extensively on the height differential between the sidewalk flags, applying a mechanistic disposition of a case based exclusively on the dimension of a sidewalk defect, which defendants’ expert measured to be seven-sixteenths of an inch … .

Plaintiff presented evidence that the height differential was not the only factor that caused her to trip. First, plaintiff established that the sidewalk was covered by a scaffolding that darkened the sidewalk and made it harder to see a sidewalk defect … . Second, plaintiff established through her expert that the expansion joint between the sidewalk flags was recessed an inch below the surface, when it should have been filled in and flush with the surface (see New York City Department of Transportation Highway Rule § 2-09[f][4][v]). The recessed expansion joint, which was repaired by the time defendants’ expert examined the sidewalk, added to the hazard …

Moreover, defendants’ expert did not inspect the area where plaintiff fell until more than 3 ½ years after plaintiff’s accident. Marks v 79th St. Tenants Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 00629, First Detp 2-4-21

 

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