You are here: / Negligence
,

WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the “lack of informed consent” cause of action should have been dismissed because the gravamen of the the allegations was the failure to evaluate the seriousness of plaintiff’s condition:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice based on lack of informed consent, “a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same 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” … . “The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury” … . However, where, as here, the gravamen of a plaintiff’s allegations are essentially that, due to their negligence, the defendants failed to evaluate the seriousness of the patient’s condition, “‘with the result that affirmative treatment was not sought in a timely manner,'” a plaintiff fails to state cause of action based on lack of informed consent … . Danziger v Mayer, 2025 NY Slip Op 01354, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the nature and elements of a “lack of informed consent” cause of action in a med mal case.​

 

, , ,

BOTH INSURANCE POLICIES WERE DEEMED TO COVER SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER AND ITS EMPLOYEE BROUGHT BY SEVERAL CO-EMPLOYEES SPANNING YEARS AND DIFFERENT WORKPLACES; THE POLICY LANGUAGE DID NOT RESTRICT THE COVERAGE FOR “RELATED” OR “INTERRELATED ACTS” TO A SINGLE PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined the language of the two insurance policies covered sexual harassment claims against an employer and its employee brought by several co-employees spanning years and different workplaces. The case is fact-specific and turned on the contractual definition of “related wrongful acts” in one policy and “interrelated wrongful acts” under the other policy:

Nothing in the language of either policy restricts Related or Interrelated Wrongful Acts to those harming the same plaintiff. * * *

… [I] both policies, common facts and common causation are presented in the disjunctive. Shared causation is necessary only in that the allegations must “aris[e] from” the “common nexus or nucleus of facts.” “In insurance contracts, the phrase ‘arising out of’ is ordinarily understood to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with. It requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided or excluded” … . * * * Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v Giorgio Armani Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 01335, First Dept 3-11-25

Practice Point: The language used in an insurance policy determines the coverage. Here the policy language was such that it covered sexual harassment claims spanning years and different workplaces brought by several plaintiffs as “related” or “interrelated acts.”

 

,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT OF WHETHER THE FOUR-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF UNDERSTOOD AND ASSUMED THE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN A YOUTH HOCKEY CLINIC; THE COACH, WHILE SKATING BACKWARDS, FELL ON THE CHILD; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant town (Oyster Bay), which offered a youth hockey clinic, was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the four-year-old plaintiff assumed the risk of injury. Defendant coach (Marlow) was skating backwards when he fell on the four-year-old plaintiff:

The [assumption of the risk] “doctrine applies where a consenting participant in sporting and amusement activities ‘is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'” … . “If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed its duty” … . Risks that are “commonly encountered” or “inherent” in a sport, as well as risks “involving less than optimal conditions,” are risks tha participants have accepted and are encompassed by the assumption of risk doctrine … . “It is not necessary . . . that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” … . Awareness of risk is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff … .

Given the evidence submitted in support of the Town defendants’ cross-motion, including the infant plaintiff’s age and scant information concerning the infant plaintiff’s skill and experience level with ice hockey, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff fully appreciated the risks involved in terms of the activity he was engaged in so as to find he assumed the risk of his injuries under the facts of this case … . H.B. v Town of Oyster Bay, 2025 NY Slip Op 01203, Second Dept 3-5-25

Practice Point: Sometimes the application of a legal doctrine seems absurd. Can a four-year-old participant in a hockey clinic appreciate the risk of being injured by a coach who skates backwards and falls on him?

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s foot to sink down about an inch into soft temporary asphalt was trivial or open and obvious as a matter of law:

Although defendants stress that the alleged defect was, at most by plaintiff’s own admission, only an inch in height, even physically small defects can be actionable “when their surrounding circumstances or intrinsic characteristics make them difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as hazards or difficult to traverse safely on foot” … . When considering the attendant circumstances, including that the defect formed itself only as plaintiff stepped down on it, the location of the alleged defect in front of plaintiff’s driveway and that defendants acknowledged temporary asphalt could depress or settle but had no record or knowledge if they performed any inspection in the area where plaintiff fell, we cannot say “as a matter of law that the condition was so trivial and slight in nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen that an accident would happen” … . Nor can we say that the defect, which may have formed due to voids under the surface of the temporary asphalt and was not physically observable until after plaintiff stepped down on it, “did not constitute a trap for the unwary” … . To this point, the fact that the backfilled trench had a sharply contrasted hue as opposed to the rest of the roadway surface or the mouth of plaintiff’s driveway simply does not translate to an open and obvious condition because of the nature of the defect, which only formed after it had been stepped on, and therefore defendants’ reliance on these facts as an aegis is misplaced. Santiago v National Grid USA Serv. Co., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01139, Third Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: The defendant seeking summary judgment in a slip and fall case bears the burden of demonstrating the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff to fall was trivial or open and obvious. Here defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to eliminate questions of fact for either theory.

 

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a protruding nail in a basement stairway which allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The defendant did not present any evidence demonstrating when the stairway was last inspected or cleaned:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that 234-236 Elmendorf Street, LLC [the property owner], lacked constructive notice of the protruding nail condition alleged by the plaintiff … . Although the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein she averred that she did not notice the protruding nail when she last used the staircase approximately one week prior to her accident, the defendants did not establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the alleged accident in order for it to be remedied … . Moreover, the defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence as to when 234-236 Elmendorf Street, LLC, had last cleaned or inspected the staircase at issue … . Jones v 234-236 Elmendorf St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01083, Second Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice the protruding nail the week before her fall was not sufficient to demonstrate defendant property owner did not have constructive knowledge of the protruding nail. No evidence of when the stairway was last cleaned or inspected was presented.

 

, ,

THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Zeltiq, the manufacturer of a system for treating burns (CoolSculpting Systems), could not be held liable for injury allegedly caused by the application of ice packs after the CoolSculpting treatment. The complaint alleged a failure to warn of the the danger of using ice packs. The use of ice packs was not part of the CoolSculpting treatment:

Zeltiq also had no duty to warn plaintiffs of any risks associated with using ice packs after treatment with the CoolSculpting System. Because the CoolSculpting System is a FDA Class II medical device that requires a prescription, Zeltiq’s duty to warn runs to physicians, not directly to patients … . Thus, in this case, Zeltiq’s duty ran to Silverstein’s [plaintiff’s] treating physician, Dr. Brauer. However, there is no duty to warn of risks that are obvious, including risks that are well-known to physicians because of their medical training … . Dr. Brauer testified that through his education and training, he was aware of and knew of the dangers of placing ice on bare skin, and that those dangers were basic medical knowledge … . Plaintiffs’ expert does not dispute that these dangers are basic knowledge in the medical community and, in fact, opines that it is a deviation from the standard of care to place ice packs on bare skin.

In addition, given Dr. Brauer’s awareness of the risk, his status as a “responsible intermediary” breaks the chain of proximate cause between any failure to warn by Zeltiq and the harm to Silverstein … . Silverstein v Coolsculpting Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01183, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Here the application of ice packs to bare skin was not part of the defendant manufacturer’s burn-treatment system. The use of the burn-treatment system is by prescription only, so the duty to warn owed by the manufacturer runs to the physician, not the patient. Here the dangers of applying ice packs to bare skin are well known to physicians, so the use of ice packs by plaintiff’s physician broke the chain of proximate cause re: the defendant manufacturer.

 

, ,

THE SIX-MONTH WAITING PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVIVAL OF OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT IS NEITHER A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOR A CONDITION PRECEDENT; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL PROCEDURAL LAW, THE SECOND CIRCUIT MAY RULE THAT DEFENDANT FORFEITED THE RIGHT TO A TIMELINESS DISMISSAL OF THE FEDERAL COMPLAINT (BASED ON THE ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS PREMATURE) BY FAILING TO TIMELY RAISE THE ISSUE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the six-month waiting period associated with the revival of negligence actions pursuant to the Child Victims Act, creating a two-year window for the filing of otherwise time-barred actions, was neither a statute of limitations nor a condition precedent. Therefore, under federal procedural law, the defendant’s failure to timely raise the issue in the federal proceedings forfeited his right to dismissal of the complaint on the ground plaintiff’s action was premature:

In 2019, the legislature passed the Child Victims Act (CVA), which provided that previously time-barred tort claims based on sex offenses against children could be brought within a specified time (see CPLR 214-g). As amended, the CVA provided that such a claim “is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than two years and six months after” February 14, 2019—i.e., “the effective date of this section” (id.). In other words, actions on these claims could be commenced “not earlier than” August 14, 2019 and “not later than” August 14, 2021. * * *

On April 26, 2019, plaintiff commenced a negligence action in state court against defendant, alleging that a teacher employed in one of defendant’s schools engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with her in and around 2009 and 2010, when she was a student under age 17, and that, in 2013, as a result of that conduct, the teacher pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree. * * *

On September 3, 2021, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant argued, for the first time, that the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff commenced her action before CPLR 214-g’s period for filing claims began. Significantly, defendant filed its motion less than three weeks after the statutory period for filing claims ended, meaning that plaintiff would be unable to recommence a timely action if defendant’s motion succeeded. Jones v Cattaraugus-Little Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 01007, CtApp 2-20-25

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals, answering the Second Circuit’s question, determined the six-month waiting period for an otherwise time-barred action brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act was not a statute of limitations or a condition precedent. Therefore the Second Circuit was free to deny a federal defendant’s motion to dismiss the Child Victims Act complaint on the ground the action was premature.

 

, ,

BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case against a school (Central Yeshiva), determined the complaint did not state causes of action for negligence or negligent retention of the teacher (Charitonov) who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiff. Bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse are not enough to avoid dismissal:

Here, the complaint failed to state causes of action alleging negligence and negligent retention, supervision, and direction against Central Yeshiva, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity to commit the alleged wrongful acts and failed to provide any factual allegations from which it could be inferred that Central Yeshiva had prior notice of similar conduct at its dormitory … . The complaint merely asserted bare legal conclusions that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity for improper conduct without providing any factual allegations that Charitonov’s abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate any basis to allow him to conduct discovery prior to directing dismissal of those causes of action (see CPLR 3211[d] …). Doe v Educational Inst. Oholei Torah, 2025 NY Slip Op 00948, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case against a school stemming from the abuse of a child by a teacher, bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse do not state a cause of action for negligence or negligent retention. The complaint must include supporting factual allegations.

 

, , , ,

A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a municipality owes a child placed in foster care a special duty, such that the municipality, although performing a governmental function, can be liable for negligent placement of a child:

Today we hold that municipalities owe a duty of care to the children the municipalities place in foster homes because the municipalities have assumed custody of those children. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff, formerly a child in foster care, commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendant Cayuga County and “Does 1-10,” who she alleged were “persons or entities with responsibilities for [p]laintiff’s safety, supervision and/or placement in foster care.” According to the complaint, the County placed plaintiff in foster care in 1974, when she was three months old. While in the foster home selected by the County, plaintiff allegedly suffered horrific abuse. Plaintiff alleged that her foster parent sexually abused her over the course of approximately seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old and continuing until she was eight years old. The foster parent allegedly coerced plaintiff’s compliance with the sexual abuse by inflicting severe physical abuse, resulting in plaintiff sustaining broken bones and a head wound. * * *

By assuming legal custody over the foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life … . We thus hold that a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from “foreseeable risks of harm” arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster parent … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2025 NY Slip Op 00903, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: A municipality generally is not liable for injury resulting from the exercise of a governmental function absent a special duty owed to the injured party. Resolving a split of authority, here the Court of Appeals held a municipality owes a special duty to a child it places in foster care.

 

, , , ,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial, determined plaintiff was improperly cross-examined about his status as a defendant in a pending lawsuit:

… Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial based upon improper cross-examination of the plaintiff about a pending lawsuit against him relating to his alleged failure to pay for an unrelated medical procedure. Where a lawsuit has not resulted in an adverse finding against a witness, counsel should not be permitted to ask the witness if he or she has been sued since the fact that a lawsuit has been commenced, in and of itself, has little or no probative value with regard to credibility … . Here, the court improvidently permitted defense counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff as to whether he was the defendant in a pending lawsuit alleging nonpayment, since the lawsuit had not resulted in an adverse finding against the plaintiff and the fact that the lawsuit had been commenced, in and of itself, had little to no probative value with regard to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Moreover, defense counsel’s reference to an allegation that the plaintiff had taken $200,000 in insurance proceeds that was not forwarded to medical providers and, after being precluded from ascertaining from the plaintiff whether that allegation was true, defense counsel’s reference to “someone” taking $250,000 that “didn’t belong to them,” prejudiced the plaintiff, who was the sole eyewitness on his behalf. Drayton v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: The cross-examination of the plaintiff about his status as a defendant a pending lawsuit was improper and warranted a mistrial.

 

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