You are here: / Negligence
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not raise a question of fact:

… [P]laintiff alleges that due to defendants’ negligence in diagnosing a skull fracture during an emergency room visit …, he sustained permanent and disabling neurological damage. …

Defendants’ expert opined that defendants did not depart from good and accepted practice by not ordering a CT head scan based on plaintiff’s initial clinical presentation in the emergency room. Defendants’ expert opined that plaintiff did not meet any of the criteria of the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) used in the emergency room setting to determine which head injuries warrant CT imaging.  [P]laintiff did not exhibit any neurological deficits, such as loss of consciousness, vomiting, headaches, or dizziness, and he was alert and mobile.

In opposition, plaintiff submitted a conclusory affirmation that failed to specifically address the criteria relied upon by defendants’ expert in opining that plaintiff’s presentation did not warrant further investigation of a possible skull fracture.

Rather, without support from the medical record, plaintiff’s expert opined that the injury occurred in the pterion region of the skull, and, moreover, defendants negligently failed to elicit the “mechanism” of injury, i.e., that plaintiff was stabbed, which, when taken together with the location of the wound, would have indicated a likelihood that plaintiff had sustained a skull fracture. Plaintiff’s expert further opined, without elaboration, that plaintiff must have had evidence of injury during his initial ER visit since he was diagnosed with a days-old skull fracture less than a week later, and therefore defendants’ examination of him was cursory and deficient. These opinions, which rely on hindsight and are both speculative and conclusory, are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Cruz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06946, First Dept 11-24-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED TOP BUNK AT A TEMPORARY SHELTER AND WAS RENDERED A QUADRIPLEGIC; THE SHELTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE SHELTER HAD INSTALLED GUARDRAILS ON OTHER TOP BUNKS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against defendant temporary housing shelter (CAFLF) should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent (Philips) was rendered a quadriplegic and later died after falling from an unguarded top bunk. The shelter’s maintenance director testified it was dangerous for anyone to sleep in an unguarded top bunk and that the shelter had installed guardrails on other top bunks:

Summary judgment should be denied to CAFLF. An unguarded top bunk is not an inherently dangerous instrumentality, and a property owner or manager has no duty to install guardrails absent notice that an unguarded top bunk presents a dangerous condition. However, Ida Morris, Philip’s late wife, testified that she and Philip had complained to a CAFLF social worker about the lack of guardrails before Philip’s accident. CAFLF’s maintenance director testified that he and his staff knew it was dangerous for anyone to sleep in an unguarded top bunk and that they installed guardrails on top bunks that were going to be slept in. While the breach of an internal policy that transcends the duty of reasonable care cannot be considered evidence of negligence … , this testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether CAFLF knew or should have known that the unguarded top bunk from which Philip fell was dangerous and, if so, whether CAFLF breached its duty to exercise reasonable care by failing to install a guardrail on the top bunk before Philip’s accident. Slaughter v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 06972, First Dept 11-24-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident was properly granted. The defendant, in his deposition, claimed he was unable to stop at the red light because the floor mat had rolled up under the brake pedal. The plaintiff submitted defendant’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The majority considered defendant’s testimony hearsay and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The dissenters argued the hearsay rule did not apply because plaintiff submitted the deposition and thereby raised triable issues of fact, or, in the alternative, waived any objection to the hearsay:

Plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendant was negligent in his operation of the vehicle inasmuch as defendant failed to stop at a red light … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies here … . The emergency doctrine provides that, “when [a driver] is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the [driver] to be reasonably so disturbed that [he or she] must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the [driver] may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … . However, “[t]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . Stated differently, “it is settled law that the emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … . Further, although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is not by itself sufficient to defeat such a motion … . Here, defendant testified at his deposition that, at the time of the accident, he was not sure why he could not apply his brakes. He learned after the accident from a body shop mechanic that “[t]he floor pad was rolled up underneath the brake pedal.” He also testified that the floor mat sliding underneath his brakes was “the only reason [he could] think of” for his inability to brake. In view of that deposition testimony, we conclude that defendant’s reliance on the emergency doctrine was based solely on hearsay and speculation and thus did not raise a triable issue of fact whether that doctrine applies. The record includes no affidavit or deposition testimony from defendant’s mechanic. Watson v Peschel, 2020 NY Slip Op 06880, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEFENSE EXPERT USING DECEDENT’S HUSBAND’S DEPOSITION IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW VIOLATION CASE; THE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, A NONPARTY, WAS AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to cross-examine the defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, who was available to testify. The defense motion to set aside the verdict in this negligence and Public-Health-Law violation case should have been granted:

Supreme Court erred in allowing plaintiff to cross-examine a defense expert using the deposition of decedent’s husband, a nonparty. CPLR 3117 limits the use of a nonparty’s deposition at trial to either the impeachment of that nonparty as a witness … , or for “any purpose against any other party” in case of the nonparty’s unavailability at trial … . Here, plaintiff was not using the husband’s deposition testimony to impeach the husband’s own trial testimony, and the husband was available and testified at trial. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, CPLR 4515 does not permit a party to cross-examine an expert with all the materials that the expert reviewed in formulating his or her opinion, regardless of the independent admissibility of those materials … . “That statute provides only that an expert witness may on cross-examination ‘be required to specify the data and other criteria supporting the opinion’ ” … . Because the testimony pertained directly to the central issue to be resolved by the jury, i.e., the quality of care that decedent received, the error was not harmless … . Williams v Ridge View Manor, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06894, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME FROM A CORPORATE MEETING HELD BY HIS EMPLOYER WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT HAPPENED; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant driver, Brownlee, was not acting within the scope of his employment, when the car accident occurred. Brownlee was on his way home from a meeting held by his employer, Stellar:

… [I]t is undisputed that the collision occurred while Brownlee was driving home from a corporate meeting held by Stellar at its headquarters in Canada. Evidence submitted by Stellar on its motion established that the corporate meeting had ended and that Brownlee had been released for the day at the time of the collision. Although Brownlee testified at his deposition that he believed that he had intended to stop at Stellar’s facility in Pennsylvania before returning home, once he received permission to leave the corporate meeting, he was no longer acting in furtherance of any duty that he owed to Stellar and was no longer under Stellar’s control … . Indeed, Brownlee did not testify that Stellar had directed him to stop at the Pennsylvania facility or that Stellar had ordered him to perform any other act once the meeting had ended. The fact that the corporate meeting was held at a location other than Brownlee’s typical place of work does not alter our analysis, nor does the fact that Brownlee was reimbursed for travel expenses … . Wood v Brownlee, 2020 NY Slip Op 06887, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

 

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant club (Sin City) and security company (Emissary) were not entitled to summary judgment in this third-party assault case. The facts are not described, but apparently plaintiffs were assaulted on the street in front of the club. There was a question of fact whether Sin City was a special employer and therefore vicariously liable for the actions of Emissary’s bouncers. The court noted, with respect to the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101) cause of action, the defendants did not demonstrate the assailants were not served alcohol while visibly intoxicated and did not demonstrate the sale of alcohol to the assailants had no connection to the assault:

Issues of fact remain as to defendants’ control of the street in front of the club, where plaintiffs’ assault occurred … ; whether defendants could or should have foreseen plaintiffs’ assault, given not only the events that transpired in the club prior to the assault … , but also the acts of violent or criminal conduct at the club predating plaintiffs’ assault … and, whether Sin City was the special employer, and is therefore vicariously liable for the acts and omissions, of Emissary’s bouncers, who provided security for Sin City on the night in question and allegedly assaulted the plaintiffs … . Ballard v Sin City Entertainment Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06842, First Dept 11-19-20

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against the security company, Beacon, and the EMT provider, Transcare, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff passed out in his seat at a concert and defendants responded. The medical technician found that plaintiff was fully conscious and alert. Because the music was so loud the medical technician asked plaintiff to go to the back of the theater to check his blood pressure and pulse. Plaintiff was offered assistance in walking but he refused. He passed out again and fell with his face hitting the floor:

Any duty Beacon or Transcare owed to plaintiff to assist him in exiting the theater terminated when he refused such assistance. It is well settled that a competent adult has the right to determine the course of his or her own medical treatment, including declining treatment … . Plaintiff does not dispute that he refused assistance in standing or ambulating. Further, the testimony was that the EMT technician assessed plaintiff as alert and oriented as he left his seat to exit the theater. Given this, the complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety as to defendants Beacon and Transcare … . Fornabaio v Beacon Broadway Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06853, First Dept 11-19-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the insurance broker, T & H, stated a cause of action in negligence based on T & H’s failure to notify the excess carrier of its potential exposure to a claim:

Under ordinary circumstances, it is understood that “insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain requested coverage for their clients within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so” … . Nevertheless, if an insured asks the broker to take on additional responsibilities above and beyond procuring specifically requested coverage, and the broker agrees to do so, a duty is created that the broker must execute with reasonable care … . Thus, we have held that a duty was imposed on a broker to notify the appropriate primary and excess carriers of a potential claim where there was “evidence that as a matter of routine [the insured] referred all questions regarding its insurance claims to [the broker] and [the broker] handled all [the insured]’s insurance needs, including referring its claims to insurers” … . Here, plaintiff alleged that it and T&H had established a course of conduct whereby plaintiff would notify the latter of claims against it and T&H would inform the carriers, and that T&H acknowledged that plaintiff relied on it to carry out this function. Indeed, plaintiff alleges, in this case T&H affirmatively represented that it had placed both the primary and the excess carrier on notice. Accordingly, plaintiff has stated a cause of action for negligence predicated on T&H’s alleged failure to advise the excess carrier of its potential exposure. Martin Assoc., Inc. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06860, First Dept 11-19-20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant contractor, CSI, was responsible for providing a safe alternative passageway while construction work blocked the sidewalk. Plaintiffs were struck by a car when they attempted to walk in the street. The CSI was hired by the general construction manager hired by Taco Bell, the owner of the premises:

“A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, CSI failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as its submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident. Byrd v Hughes, 2020 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S KNEE BECAME STIFF AND IMPOSSIBLE TO BEND AFTER SURGERY; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEFENDANT DOCTOR WHO TREATED HER AT THE POST-SURGERY REHABILITATION CENTER; THE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, WHO DID NOT PERFORM THE SURGERY, HAD CERTIFIED AND RECOMMENDED PHYSICAL AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY FOR PLAINTIFF AT THE REHABILITATION CENTER; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DOCTOR PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE THERAPY ITSELF, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Raber’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Dr. Raber treated plaintiff at a nursing and rehabilitation center, Glen Cove, where, after knee surgery, plaintiff voluntarily transferred. After about a month at Glen Cove, plaintiff was seen by her orthopedic surgeon who found plaintiff’s knee had become stiff and impossible to bend. Dr. Raber had certified and recommended physical and occupational therapy at Glen Cove, for which Dr. Raber was not responsible. Dr. Raber moved for summary judgment on the ground that any regimen of physical therapy was the responsibility of Glen Cove:

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” … .

Here, Raber testified at his deposition that he is trained only in internal medicine, and was the plaintiff’s internist while she was at Glen Cove. Raber established that he was not the plaintiff’s physical or occupational therapist and was not involved in the plaintiff’s physical therapy plan of care. Physical therapists (see Education Law §§ 6731, 6732) must be educated and licensed in that specific field (see Education Law § 6734), and Raber had no such training. Occupational therapists must similarly be educated and licensed in their field (see Education Law § 7904). Raber’s medical expert opined that Raber’s training as an internal medicine specialist did not encompass the skills and knowledge required to assess a patient’s physical therapy needs, create a physical therapy plan of care, or supervise a physical therapy plan of care. …

Raber established that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice by deferring to the physical and occupational therapy specialists at Glen Cove for the assessment and treatment of the plaintiff’s right knee, and had no duty to evaluate the efficacy of that treatment, since he was not involved in that aspect of the plaintiff’s care … . Aaron v Raber, 2020 NY Slip Op 06738, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

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