You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CENTER IS LIABLE UNDER THE OSTENSIBLE AGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there is a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this medical malpractice action; (2) the lack of informed consent cause of action should be reinstated; (3) there is a question of fact whether the medical center (NYU Langone) is liable for the anesthesiologist (Coopersmith) who performed the pre-surgery nerve block pursuant to the doctrine of ostensible agency; and (4) the action against the doctor who assisted Dr. Coopersmith was properly dismissed because she didn’t exercise any independent judgment in the procedure:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that she sufficiently established that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to her cause of action for medical malpractice. The parties’ experts disagreed as to whether plaintiff’s injury ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence, raising an issue of fact on that point … . Plaintiff also established that defendants were in control of all instruments used in the nerve block, and plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to her injuries … . To the extent that defendants’ expert opined that post-operative symptoms and image studies were not consistent with needle trauma to a nerve, that opinion did not refute plaintiff’s assertion of res ipsa loquitur because it failed to identify any other possible cause of plaintiff’s plexopathy, let alone a more probable cause … . Moreover, defendants’ expert did not dispute that plaintiff sus tained nerve damage and did not opine that the nerve damage pre-existed the surgery. …

We agree with defendants that they were entitled to a determination that no actual agency existed between NYU Langone and Dr. Coopersmith because NYU Langone did not employ or otherwise control Dr. Coopersmith. However, we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether NYU Langone could be held liable for Dr. Coopersmith’s actions in his treatment of plaintiff through ostensible agency. It is undisputed that plaintiff was treated by Dr. Feldman [the surgeon] because she sought out his care. However, Dr. Feldman testified that he did not choose which anesthesiologist at NYU Langone would perform the nerve block on plaintiff, instead an anesthesiologist was assigned by the Department of Anesthesia. A jury could reasonably infer from this testimony that Dr. Coopersmith was provided by NYU Langone and that plaintiff reasonably believed that Dr. Coopersmith was acting on NYU Langone’s behalf … . Sklarova v Coopersmith, 2020 NY Slip Op 01033, First Dept 2-13-20

 

,

DESPITE THE BRAKE-FAILURE ALLEGATION IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT BRAKE FAILURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant did not raise a question of fact about the brake-failure allegation:

” … [D]efendants’ contention that their vehicle’s brake failure was the cause of the accident was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to liability. Defendants failed to satisfy the two-pronged showing that the accident was caused by an unanticipated problem with the vehicle’s brakes, and that they exercised reasonable care to keep the brakes in good working order … .

Summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor is not premature. Both plaintiff and defendant driver had firsthand knowledge of the accident, and submitted affidavits. However, defendants did not submit any evidence concerning maintenance of their vehicle. Defendants only speculate that there may be facts supporting their opposition to plaintiff’s motion which exist but cannot yet be stated … . Quiros v Hawkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 01020, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

WIFE’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HER DECEASED HUSBAND TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT IN HER HUSBAND’S SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s wife’s (Jesenia’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute herself for her deceased husband in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendant had settled the case and Jesenia was seeking payment:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the settlement of the action did not preclude the granting of a motion for substitution (see CPLR 1015[a]; 1021 …). “The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . Without substitution as a party plaintiff, Jesenia may not seek relief pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. CPLR 5003-a provides that if a settling defendant fails to pay the sum due under a settlement agreement within 21 days of tender of a duly executed release and a stipulation discontinuing the action, the settling plaintiff may, without further notice, pursue the entry of a judgment in the amount of the settlement, plus interest, costs, and disbursements … . Rivera v Skeen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01100, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted. Although the excuse was inadequate, the respondents had timely notice of the incident and were not prejudiced by the delay:

In determining whether to grant an extension, the key factors to consider are: (1) “whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim within the statutory time frame”; (2) “whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter”; and (3) “whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense” … .

Here, although petitioners failed to offer any reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim, this failure is not, standing alone, fatal … . Indeed, petitioners sufficiently demonstrated that respondents acquired actual notice of the event within a reasonable time thereafter, and that respondents would not be substantially prejudiced in their defense by the delay. Specifically, there is a surveillance video of the accident [which]  … the claims administrator … acknowledged having in its possession approximately six months after the accident. Moreover, the operator of the lift that injured petitioner was employed by respondents.

In addition, the correspondence … suggests that … only one month after plaintiff’s accident, respondents’ insurers were aware that the claims administrator anticipated that petitioner would be asserting a claim based on the … . … Our conclusion is further supported by the relatively short delay in petitioners’ moving for leave to file a late notice of claim. Matter of Sproule v New York Convention Ctr. Operating Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01015, First Dept 2-13-20

 

,

VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the damages verdict awarding $0 for future pain and suffering should have been set aside:

The jury’s award of damages for past pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]). Plaintiff sustained a bimalleolar ankle fracture and underwent two surgeries, the first involving implantation of hardware in the ankle and the second involving arthroscopy and removal of the hardware and some scar tissue. Comparing this matter to similar cases … , we find that $275,000 is reasonable compensation … .

The award for future damages also deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]). Defendant’s expert agreed that plaintiff’s injury is permanent and that he has developed arthritis in his left ankle, which may require treatment in the future, including the possibility of an ankle replacement. In light of the foregoing, we find that $100,000 for future pain and suffering is reasonable compensation … . Thomas v New York City Hous. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 01001, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE NOT AFFECTED BY A YEAR AND THREE MONTH GAP IN TREATMENT, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Although the alleged malpractice (the failure to follow up on a detection of a mass) occurred in 2006, the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. A year and three month gap in treatment did not preclude application of the continuous treatment doctrine:

Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether Dr. Woo continuously treated the decedent for conditions related to renal cell carcinoma. Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Feit, opined that Dr. Woo treated the decedent for symptoms of back pain, hypertension, and insomnia, all of which were symptoms of and related to renal cell carcinoma, a diagnosis that should have been considered given the findings in the 2006 MRI of a renal mass.

Plaintiff sufficiently established that such treatment continued through the decedent’s hospitalization in July 2012. * * *

The one-year-and-three month gap between the April 2011 visit and the July 2012 note does not preclude application of the continuous treatment doctrine … . Dookhie v Woo, 2020 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-11-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF THE MOTORCYCLE, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver of the motorcycle (Baker) could have avoided this intersection traffic accident case. The motorcycle had the right-of-way and collided with defendants’ (Willow Bend’s) truck. Plaintiff was a passenger on the motorcycle. Willow Bend’s cross motion against the driver of the motorcycle (Baker Estate) should not have been dismissed:

We agree with the Willow Bend defendants that the court erred in granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Willow Bend defendants’ cross claim. In moving for summary judgment, the Baker Estate had the initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Baker “was operating [the motorcycle] in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing that [Baker] could have done to avoid the collision” … . “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . “[U]nder the doctrine of comparative negligence, a driver who lawfully enters an intersection may still be found partially at fault for an accident if he or she fails to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection” … . We conclude that the Baker Estate failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as its own submissions in support of the motion raised a triable issue of fact … .

Although the Baker Estate established that Baker had the right-of-way as he approached the intersection, the Baker Estate submitted the deposition testimony of Baker and plaintiff, who each testified that, before the collision, Baker applied his brakes but did not attempt to steer around the dump truck. Baker further testified that he did not use his horn. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Willow Bend defendants, that testimony raises an issue of fact whether Baker exercised reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . Carroll v Willow Bend Farm LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00954, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLACEMENT OF A RUG CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof did not establish the placement of a rug was a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly tripped and fell on a rug while walking through a restaurant owned and operated by defendant. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion, and dismiss the complaint. “Although the issue whether a certain condition qualifies as dangerous or defective is usually a question of fact for the jury to decide . . . , summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous’ ” … . Here, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the placement of the rug in the restaurant did not constitute a dangerous condition, and in opposition plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Glosek v Bella Pizza, 2020 NY Slip Op 00933, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE DID NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE TENANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, THE VILLAGE CODE DID; THE TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant tenant’s (Invite Health’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although, under the lease, the tenant had no duty to maintain the sidewalk, the village code imposed that duty on owners and tenants:

Here, Code of the Village of New Hyde Park § 165-40.1 requires “owners, tenants or other persons occupying or entitled to the possession and control of any lands, whether vacant or improved” to, among other things, maintain the abutting public sidewalk “in a good state of repair and free and clear of any physical defects or other unsafe, hazardous or dangerous obstructions, encumbrances or conditions” and imposes joint and several liability upon them for injuries caused by their breach of that duty (see Code of the Village of New Hyde Park §§ 1-18, 165-40.1). Given the Code’s imposition of an obligation on a tenant or occupant to maintain an abutting public sidewalk, Invite Health, as a tenant and occupant of the abutting property, had a statutory duty to maintain the public sidewalk where the accident occurred (see Code of the Village of New Hyde Park §§ 1-18, 165-40.1 …) . As such, the mere fact that Invite Health had no duty under the lease agreement to maintain the abutting sidewalk was not dispositive of the issue of whether it owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care. Mule v Invite Health at New Hyde Park, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00869, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PROVED IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING VEHICLES AND THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS LEASED AT THE TIME, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE THE CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the truck rental company’s (MTLR’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Although MTLR proved that the truck was rented out at the time of the accident, it failed to offer any proof of the condition of the truck:

… [T]he Graves Amendment provides “that the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle by reason of being the owner of the vehicle for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease if: (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner)'” … . However, where “a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the alleged failure to maintain a rented vehicle” … , the vehicle owner is not afforded protection under the Graves Amendment if it fails to demonstrate that it did not negligently maintain its vehicle … .

Here, MTLR failed to meet its prima facie burden demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it. Although MTLR submitted evidence showing that it owned the subject vehicle, that it was engaged in the business of leasing vehicles, and that the subject accident occurred during the period of the rental … , MTLR failed to submit any admissible evidence demonstrating the condition of the vehicle at the time of delivery or at any time up to the happening of the accident … . Couchman v Nunez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00844, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

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