You are here: / Negligence

INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, in affirming a $1.8 million verdict in this car accident case, determined that the increased susceptibility to injury jury instruction did not affect the verdict so it didn’t discuss the propriety of the instruction. The Second Department also determined that defendants were not entitled to a duty to mitigate instruction based upon plaintiff’s failure to lose weight:

The defendants contend that the instructions on increased susceptibility prejudiced them because, based upon those instructions, the jury could find that the plaintiff’s apparent predisposition to obesity rendered him more susceptible to pain and suffering from his injuries. Increased susceptibility to injury “must be affirmatively pleaded and proven before recovery therefor can be allowed” …  In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the accident aggravated a preexisting back injury, indicating an increased susceptibility to an aggravated back injury.

The increased susceptibility instruction given by the Supreme Court did not refer to any condition. The pattern jury instruction for aggravation of a preexisting injury provides that “the plaintiff is entitled to recover for any (increased) disability or pain resulting from” the aggravation of a preexisting injury or condition where the aggravation was caused by the accident (PJI 2:282). This charge is somewhat similar to the increased susceptibility charge, which instructs the jury that “[t]he fact that the plaintiff may have a physical or mental condition that makes [him or her] more susceptible to injury than a normal healthy person does not relieve the defendant[s] of liability for all injuries sustained as a result of [their] negligence” (PJI 2:283). On the issue of aggravation of the preexisting back condition, the jury found in favor of the defendants, and therefore did not award any damages based upon an increased susceptibility to an aggravated back injury. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the jury instructions did not affect the verdict.

We … agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to decline to instruct the jury with respect to the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages by losing weight. “A party seeking to avail itself of the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages must establish that the injured party failed to make diligent efforts to mitigate its damages, and the extent to which such efforts would have diminished those damages” … . The defendants failed to meet that burden. The plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon testified that the plaintiff’s decision whether to have bariatric surgery to facilitate weight loss was “a personal decision.” The plaintiff’s expert further testified that the plaintiff’s obesity did not change the need for knee and hip replacements, as “the dye [sic] was cast the minute that this injury occurred.” The trial evidence established that the plaintiff complied with medical directives for physical therapy in an effort to mitigate damages, and there was no evidence presented that his damages would have been less if he had more actively participated in physical therapy. People v Kolsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 8-8-18  [Note that the name of this case probably should be Rivera v Kolsky. “People” v Kolsky is how the case was (mis)named when the decision was first released.]

NEGLIGENCE (INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (DAMAGES, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, (INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INJURY JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT, NO DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES BY LOSING WEIGHT, REQUEST FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the city was immune from suit stemming from alleged interference with the right of sepulcher during Hurricane Sandy, which flooded the Bellevue Hospital morgue. The court further determined there was no special relationship between plaintiff and the city:

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the right of sepulcher does not, by definition, trump governmental immunity … acted in its governmental capacity at all relevant times… . The specific act from which plaintiffs’ claims arise is the City’s treatment of the decedent’s body in the context of Hurricane Sandy, i.e., as the hurricane approached, once it had struck, and in its aftermath. Plaintiffs seek to ignore or minimize the significance of that context. However, their claims directly implicate the City’s emergency preparations and the decisions it made during and immediately after the unprecedented hurricane, which caused, among other things, unprecedented flooding in the Bellevue Hospital morgue — all quintessential governmental functions. Moreover, these preparations and decisions were discretionary, not ministerial … . Thus, the record demonstrates the elements of governmental function immunity from liability as a matter of law … .

Plaintiffs failed to establish the special relationship with the City required for holding the City liable for their injury … . In support of their contention that the City violated a statutory duty enacted for their benefit, they rely on statutes that do not contemplate private rights of action and, in any event, are not relevant to this case, which does not involve autopsy, dissection or unclaimed remains (see Public Health Law § 4215) or individuals fighting for control over the disposition of those remains … . Nor did plaintiffs establish that, in its treatment of the decedent’s body in the wake of Hurricane Sandy,the City voluntarily assumed a duty that generated their justifiable reliance … . Lee v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05626, First Dept 8-2-18

SEPULCHER (CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, SEPULCHER, CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT))

,

RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this medical malpractice action, explained the criteria for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this context:

In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. To rely on that doctrine, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the event is of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality that caused the injury is within the defendants’ exclusive control; and (3) the injury is not the result of any voluntary action by the plaintiff” … . A plaintiff “need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury” … . A plaintiff must only show that the likelihood of other possible causes of the injury is so reduced ” that the greater probability lies at defendant’s door'” … .

Here, the redacted and unsigned affirmation of the plaintiff’s medical expert was not entitled to consideration … and, in any event, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as she did not demonstrate that the injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence or that the instrumentality that caused her injury was within the defendants’ exclusive control … . Pagano v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05599, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a police report was not sufficient to timely notify the town of the essential facts of potential lawsuit stemming from a collision between petitioner’s vehicle and a town snow plow. The petition for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied:

… [T]he petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Village obtained timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. The late notice of claim served upon the Village approximately three months after the 90-day statutory period had elapsed did not provide the Village with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the statutory period … . Furthermore, the police accident report alone, without any evidence of further investigation by the Village, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the Village … . Matter of Vega v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 2018 NY Slip Op 05598, Second Dept 8-1-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, OLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell over a discarded metal frame on village property. The court noted that the mother’s derivative cause of action was time-barred because the infancy toll of the statute of limitations did not apply to her:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the Village on behalf of the mother in her individual capacity, as the statute of limitations for her derivative cause of action had expired at the time the proceeding was commenced … . The infancy toll (see CPLR 208) is personal to the infant and does not extend to a parent’s derivative cause of action … . Matter of R.N. v Village of New Sq., 2018 NY Slip Op 05595, Second Dept 8-1-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MUNICIPAL LAW, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INFANCY TOLL (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case were properly denied.  Plaintiff was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred. However, defendant demonstrated that he was unable to stop because of slippery conditions:

On his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle… . However, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a nonnegligent explanation; namely, an unavoidable skidding on a snow-covered road … . …

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Here, in light of the defendant’s testimony regarding his speed and distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle just before the collision and the testimony that he immediately applied the brakes when the plaintiff’s brake lights illuminated but nonetheless was caused to skid by snowy road conditions, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could reach the conclusion that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Miller v Steinberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05585, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the defendants, a hotel and elevator maintenance company, were entitled to summary judgment in this elevator-injury case. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when the doors of a freight elevator closed on her. A video showed that the doors remained open for the programmed period of time (20 seconds), plaintiff attempted to get off the elevator at the end of the 20 second period, and the doors retracted as soon as they came into contact with the plaintiff:

“A property owner can be held liable for an elevator-related injury where there is a defect in the elevator, and the property owner has actual or constructive notice of the defect, or where it fails to notify the elevator company with which it has a maintenance and repair contract about a known defect” … . “An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition can also be held liable to an injured passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . …

[The] evidence established that the elevator operated properly and was not defective, and that the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of any alleged defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Hussey v Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05581, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATORS (VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT))

RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged raised area of a floor mat was not trivial as a matter of law:

The plaintiff gave deposition testimony to the effect that she tripped and fell over a raised portion of a rubber mat near the entrance of the supermarket. The plaintiff’s husband testified at his deposition that the raised portion of the mat was “two fat fingers high.” The defendants’ store manager testified at his deposition that the bump in the mat was about half an inch high. …

In determining a motion for summary judgment, a court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . Here, the Supreme Court should not have granted the motion on the ground that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, since the issue was not raised by the defendants in their motion papers. In any event, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants, including a surveillance footage of the incident, was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the condition of the mat was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Green v Price Chopper, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05578, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release, which purported to cover future actions in a medical malpractice suit resulting from a hospital (NSUH) admission, did not preclude a second suit that arose from a second hospital admission:

The parties settled Action No. 1 … and executed … a release that released NSUH “and all . . . related business entities . . . and all . . . employees, physicians, [and] servants, . . . from all past, present and future [*2]claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, wrongful death or bodily or personal injury claims . . . of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, based upon any legal or equitable theory, . . . which the RELEASORS, their heirs, executors, administrators . . . hereafter can, shall, or may now have, or may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, against RELEASEES for, upon, or by reason or any actual or alleged act, omission, transaction, practice, conduct, occurrence, or other matter . . . from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE” (hereinafter the release). * * *

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, NSUH failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the release executed by the parties settling Action No. 1 was intended to preclude the plaintiff from recovering for claims that allegedly arose during and as a result of the second admission, which were not yet in dispute at the time the release was executed … . While the plaintiff may have been aware of the incident giving rise to Action No. 2 when she signed the release, any such awareness is insufficient, itself, to establish that the release was intended to cover any potential claims which were not the subject of Action No. 1. Chiappone v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05569, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their medical malpractice action, which had been automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, was properly denied:

The plaintiff … allegedly was injured at the time of his birth in April 1995, as a result of the defendants’ negligence. In 1997, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants … . It is undisputed that on September 26, 2003, the action was marked off the trial calendar upon the plaintiffs’ request so that the plaintiffs’ counsel could amplify the bill of particulars based on the injured plaintiff’s recent psychological evaluations. Later, the action was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. By notice of motion dated November 12, 2015, the plaintiffs moved to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar. * * *

Here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their more than 12-year delay in moving to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to adequately explain why it took more than 12 years from the time the action was marked off the trial calendar to ascertain the effects of the injuries that the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained at birth … . Furthermore, in light of the plaintiffs’ inactivity regarding the action during the more than 12-year period prior to moving to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants would not be prejudiced if the case were to be restored to the trial calendar, given the 20-year and 7-month delay between the date this action accrued and the date of the plaintiffs’ motion to restore … . Hagler v Southampton Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05579, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3404 (MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

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