You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN ERRONEOUSLY PRONOUNCED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DEAD AND ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO REEXAMINE HIM FOR NEARLY THREE HOURS, DESPITE THE PLEAS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ALLEGEDLY SAW HIM BREATHING, MAKING EYE CONTACT AND MOVING; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE PARTIES FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE; THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have prohibited the parties and their attorneys from making statements about the underlying facts in this medical malpractice action, and the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead by an emergency physician (Perry). However plaintiff’s decedent was not in fact dead and the emergency physician allegedly refused to examine plaintiff’s decedent for nearly three hours. Plaintiff’s decedent subsequently died after surgery at another hospital:

Perry notified plaintiff that decedent had died, and plaintiff, along with decedent’s son and several other family members, was brought into the code room. Plaintiff alleges that, for the next two hours and 40 minutes, decedent was breathing, making eye contact, and moving around, which prompted her and the coroner to urge Perry and the nursing staff to examine decedent, but they refused to do so. When Perry examined decedent at 11:10 p.m. at plaintiff’s insistence, he observed that decedent was, in fact, alive. Decedent was transferred to another hospital, where he underwent heart surgery and subsequently died. * * *

Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motions for an order enjoining and prohibiting the parties and their attorneys from making extrajudicial statements about the action or the underlying facts in a public forum or in front of the media. Although defendants met their burden of “demonstrat[ing] that such statements present a reasonable likelihood’ of a serious threat to [defendants’] right to a fair trial” … , there is no evidence in the record “that less restrictive alternatives would not be just as effective in assuring the defendant[s] a fair trial” … . Absent “the requisite showing of a necessity for such restraints,” a court may not impose prior restraints on First Amendment rights … . * * *

We agree with defendants … that the court erred in denying their motions insofar as they sought summary judgment dismissing the … causes of action … for NIED … . . “A breach of the duty of care resulting directly in emotional harm is compensable even though no physical injury occurred’ … when the mental injury is a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach’ … and when the claim possesses some guarantee of genuineness’ … .  Here, defendants met their respective burdens of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff and decedent’s son did not suffer mental and emotional injuries causally related to Perry’s erroneous pronouncement of decedent’s death, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by demonstrating the requisite ” guarantee of genuineness’ ” with respect to her claims of mental or emotional injuries … . Cleveland v Gregory C. Perry, M.D., FDR Med. Servs., P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06306, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

IN A TRIAL SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 5102 THE TERM “SERIOUS INJURY” NOT “INJURY” SHOULD BE USED ON THE VERDICT SHEET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the term “serious injury” not “injury” should be used on a verdict sheet in a case involving Insurance Law 5102:

… [W]e … note that the first question on the verdict sheet — i.e., “[w]as the accident . . . a substantial factor in causing an injury to [plaintiff]?” — invites the very problem we addressed in Brown v Ng (163 AD3d 1464, 1465 [4th Dept 2018]), where we noted that an interrogatory asking whether the plaintiff sustained an “injury” fails to address the appropriate legal issue, which is whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The first question on the verdict sheet was unnecessary here inasmuch as the second and third questions asked the jury to determine whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the relevant categories that was causally related to the accident. McCulloch v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06254, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s burn injuries was a guest’s (Gray’s) pouring kerosene onto an active fire in a fire pit at defendants’ home. All parties were adults. The mere presence of kerosene at the home did not constitute a dangerous condition. The dissenter argued defendant-parent did not demonstrate his daughter did not breach a duty to control the conduct of Gray:

Although plaintiff correctly contends that defendants owed him a duty of care as a guest on their property … , defendants’ submissions establish that they did not breach their duty to “act as . . . reasonable [persons] in maintaining [the] property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk” … . All attendees of the gathering at defendants’ property on the night of the incident were adults, and it was not unreasonable for defendants to allow the small group of adults to use the premises for an unsupervised gathering around a fire pit. Bavisotto v Doldan, 2019 NY Slip Op 06247, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

NO QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE THE STORM, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendants demonstrated they were entitled to summary judgment under the storm in progress rule. The dissenters argued there was a question of fact whether the icy condition was there before the storm:

… [W]e conclude that defendants established as a matter of law “that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident and, thus, that [they] had no duty to remove the snow [or] ice until a reasonable time ha[d] elapsed after cessation of the storm’ ” … .

Where, as here, a defendant’s own submissions do not raise an issue of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm, the burden shifts to the plaintiff “to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accident was caused by a slippery condition at the location where the plaintiff fell that existed prior to the storm, as opposed to precipitation from the storm in progress, and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the preexisting condition’ ” …

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, nothing in her deposition testimony, which was submitted by defendants in support of their respective motions, raised a triable issue of fact whether the ice she allegedly observed existed before the storm … , and the evidence that plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motions also did not raise a triable issue of fact. Battaglia v MDC Concourse Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06310, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , , , ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION OR PRIMA FACIE TORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, the assignee of no-fault benefits, did not state valid causes of action against the insurer for breach of contract, negligent hiring and supervision, and prima facie tort. The claims were paid by the defendant and plaintiff alleged flaws and delays in the processing of the claims:

The amended complaint, however, failed to identify the specific insurance contracts that plaintiff had performed services under or the contract provisions that defendant allegedly breached. Inasmuch as bare legal conclusions without factual support are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, we conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. …

Although “[a]n employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act”… , the amended complaint failed to allege that the acts of defendant’s employees were committed independent of defendant’s instruction or outside the scope of employment … . …

“There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” … . Here, the amended complaint alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intentionally caused harm to plaintiff by requesting verifications and examinations under oath. Those conclusory allegations, however, failed to state that defendant had ” a malicious [motive] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of [plaintiff]’ ” … . Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of [a prima facie tort] cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” … . Medical Care of W. N.Y. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 06243, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant contractor launched an instrument of harm in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged she tripped on a piece of masonite that had been placed over concrete that had just been poured. There was also a question of fact whether the property owner had constructive notice of the condition:

The … defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Howell launched a force or instrument of harm through the failure to exercise reasonable care when its employee laid the subject masonite over the area of the floor where the self-leveling concrete had been poured … . …

The evidence proffered by the … defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the [defendants] lacked constructive notice of a hazardous condition on the premises. During an examination before trial, [defendant’s] operations director was asked about his inspection tour of the mall on the morning of the plaintiff’s fall. His repeated descriptions of what he “normally would” do and “probably would have” done are ambiguous as to whether he is describing a specific inspection, or merely describing general inspection policies and practices … . Pinto v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06157, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S NEGLIGENCE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the substantial plaintiff’s verdict in this wrongful death case should have been set aside. It was alleged that the NYS Transit Authority was negligent in failing to make sure all passengers were off the subway train when the train reached the end of the line, requiring that it be repositioned in the relay tunnel. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was intoxicated, remained on the train. At some point he fell from the train in the relay tunnel and was killed:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational people to conclude that the defendants’ alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries and death … . Even assuming that the defendants’ employees were negligent in failing to remove the decedent from the train before it was taken into the subject relay tunnel, the defendants’ negligence merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the decedent’s fall from the train …  rather than being one of its proximate causes. While the record evidence supports the plaintiffs’ theory that the decedent was in the area between the two northernmost subway cars when he fell to the tracks below, the circumstances that led the decedent to be in that area, and the cause of the fall itself, remain unknown and, therefore, speculative … . Williams v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06187, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Instead of answering the defendant’s expert opinion that the doctor’s actions were not the cause of the amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) which plaintiff alleged caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent, the plaintiff for the first time alleged the cause of death was septic shock, not AFE. Supreme Court erroneously denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege the new theory:

… [T]he defendant met his prima facie burden as to proximate cause by submitting the affidavit of an expert in maternal fetal medicine, who opined that any delay in the decedent undergoing an abortion procedure from the second trimester to the third trimester did not cause her to develop AFE. In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s prima facie showing, but rather alleged, for the first time, a new theory of causation, claiming that the decedent died of septic shock, not AFE. “A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars” … . …

“[O]nce discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show special and extraordinary circumstances in seeking leave to amend the complaint and the bill of particulars in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, three years after the commencement of the action and almost six months after the filing of the note of issue. The plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for relying solely on the medical examiner’s report and for failing to explore his new theory of causation earlier in the proceedings … . Moreover, permitting the amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would prejudice the defendant. Anonymous v Gleason, 2019 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when she was struck by defendant’s bus making a right turn:

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting her own affidavit and a certified copy of the police accident report, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal in her favor, when the defendants’ vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a non-negligent explanation for striking the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff … . Rodriguez-Garcia v Bobby’s Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06221, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff alleged a discarded metrocard was the cause of her slip and fall on a train station stairwell. The defendant did not demonstrate when the stairwell was last inspected or cleaned:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff … alleges that he was injured when, while descending stairs in a subway station, he slipped and fell on a discarded Metrocard. Although the cleaner on duty in the station testified he was given a Cleaners Manual and a written cleaning schedule, evidencing that defendant had a “rational means for dealing with the problem” of strewn MetroCards on the stairwell of train stations, the cleaner conceded that he could not recall whether he had deviated from his usual work schedule on the date of plaintiff’s accident and he did not have an independent recollection of when the staircase was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .

Because defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to establish how long the condition existed … . Carela v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 06140, First Dept 8-13-19

 

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