You are here: / Negligence
,

PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendants’ motion to strike the purported supplemental bills of particulars was properly granted. The supplemental bills of particulars alleged new injuries in this rear-end collision case. The supplemental bills of particulars were actually amended bills of particulars. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendants were not prejudiced by the new allegations and failed to explain the delay:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the documents he denominated the “second supplemental bill of particulars” and “third supplemental bill of particulars” were, in reality, amended bills of particulars, as they sought to add new injuries (see CPLR 3403[b]… ). While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise, here, the plaintiff failed to establish the absence of prejudice or surprise to the defendants, and failed to adequately explain the delay in seeking to add the new injuries … . Kirk v Nahon, 2018 NY Slip Op 02604, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/BILLS OF PARTICULARS ( PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS (PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS (PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3403 (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (BILLS OF PARTICULARS, PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined negligence causes of action against the distributor (Durst) and (Canje) retailer of a sulfuric acid drain opener, and a negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (launching an instrument of harm) cause of action against the distributor should not have been dismissed:

Because defendant Canje, the retail outlet at which the product was purchased, never agreed to abide by the sale policy of the manufacturer, third-party defendant Hercules Chemical Company, Inc., to restrict the sale of the product to plumbing and/or building professionals, it cannot be held liable for launching a force of harm in negligent discharge of a contractual obligation (see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). However, issues of fact exist whether defendant Durst, the distributor that sold the product to Canje, had a contractual duty to refrain from selling the product to Canje and whether Durst breached this duty and its acknowledged contractual undertakings to take appropriate steps to assure the proper sale and use of the product and to comply with the Seller’s Notice prohibiting sales to non-professionals and the display of the product where it was easily accessible. Durst argues that even if it breached such a duty it did not launch a force or instrument of harm. However, … [t]his case, in which there is evidence that Durst created the unsafe condition by supplying the product without proper safeguards, is … akin to Landon v Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc. (22 NY3d 1 [2013]), in which the Court of Appeals found that the allegation that the defendant’s negligent testing procedures subjected the plaintiff to legal proceedings stated a cause of action based on the launch of a force of harm. Janiya W.-G. v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 02557, First Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, LAUNCH OF IN INSTRUMENT OF HARM, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INSTRUMENT OF HARM, LAUNCH OF (NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, ESPINAL, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action for negligent entrustment of a motorcycle properly survived a summary judgment motion. The motorcycle was borrowed by Perkins from Hines. When Zimmer pulled out of his driveway, Perkins, who was operating the motorcycle, swerved and hit a tree. Perkins sued Zimmer and Zimmer sued Hines for negligent entrustment. Perkins had a driving permit but did not have a driver’s license:

… [T]his appeal deals with a negligent entrustment cause of action; the issue is not Perkins’ negligence in operating the motorcycle, but whether Hines should have entrusted the motorcycle to him in the first instance … . Thus, the fact that Perkins did not possess a motorcycle license “is a factor to consider in determining whether” Hines knew or should have known if Perkins was competent to operate her motorcycle. …

We reject Hines’ argument that a negligent entrustment cause of action cannot stand under the present circumstances because the person who was injured (Perkins) was the one to whom a dangerous instrument was allegedly negligently entrusted … . Similarly, it is irrelevant that Zimmer was not physically injured. The injury alleged to him here is “financial harm resulting from potential liability of a ‘concurrent’ tort-feasor” for Perkins’ injuries while using the dangerous instrument … . Zimmer is not precluded from obtaining a recovery from Hines merely because Perkins may not be able to directly recover from Hines based on her negligent entrustment of the motorcycle to him; the situation is analogous to one in which a third-party tortfeasor “may implead for contribution or indemnity the employer of an injured employee, despite the employee’s inability to recover from the employer directly” due to the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Perkins v County of Tompkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 02530, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/MOTOCYCLES (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))/DRIVER’S LICENSE ( (MOTORCYCLE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendants did not eliminate all trial issues of fact in this ice and snow slip and fall case. The defendants did not demonstrate when the area had last been cleared or inspected. The fact that the fall occurred in a restricted area was not determinative because defendants were aware the area was used by people and there were no signs instructing people not to use it:

Even if we agreed with defendants that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition, we conclude that defendants did not meet their initial moving burden inasmuch as their own proof failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact on the issue of constructive notice… .. In this regard, defendants’ proof, including the photographs, did not suffice to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area in question … . Additionally, even though the area where plaintiff slipped and fell was a restricted area, the record evidence shows that defendants were aware that people would cross through this area and there were no signs instructing people not to do so. Hurley v City of Glens Falls, 2018 NY Slip Op 02529, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))/ICE AND SNOW (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant municipality and hockey club were negligent in failing to adequately protect the plaintiff, a spectator, from being struck by a hockey puck, The goals had been repositioned in areas where there was no protective netting behind them:

It is well-settled that an owner or operator of an athletic field or facility “is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators” … and that, under the assumption of risk doctrine, consenting “[s]pectators and bystanders . . . assume risks associated with a sporting event or activity, even at times when they are not actively watching the event” … . However, “a plaintiff will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks”… . Notwithstanding a spectator’s assumption of risk, an owner or occupier of land remains under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent injury to those who are present on the property … . In the context of hockey rinks, “the owner’s duty owed to spectators is discharged by providing screening around the area behind the hockey goals, where the danger of being struck by a puck is the greatest, as long as the screening is of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire to view the game from behind such screening” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ proof demonstrating that defendants’ repositioning of the hockey goals along the less protected sides of the rink — “where the danger of being struck by a puck is greatest” …  — was sufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants satisfied their reasonable duty of care owed to the child walking down the ramp behind the repositioned goal. Smero v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 02521, Third Dept 4-12-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/SPECTATORS (HOCKEY RINK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))/HOCKEY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT))

,

MAINTENANCE WORKER’S BACK INJURY FROM CARRYING A HEAVY BAG OF GARBAGE WAS CAUSED BY A RISK INHERENT IN THE WORK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff maintenance worker’s back injury, caused by picking up a heavy bag of garbage, was not actionable because the injury was from a risk inherent in the work:

The defendant [lessee] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence demonstrating that the subject garbage bag was not over a weight accepted or contractually agreed upon by the defendant and the plaintiff’s employer at the time of the alleged incident, and that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from a risk inherent in his assigned work as a maintenance worker … . Moody v Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 02454, Second Dept 4-11-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MAINTENANCE WORKER’S BACK INJURY FROM CARRYING A HEAVY BAG OF GARBAGE WAS CAUSED BY A RISK INHERENT IN THE WORK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, PERSONAL INJURY, MAINTENANCE WORKER’S BACK INJURY FROM CARRYING A HEAVY BAG OF GARBAGE WAS CAUSED BY A RISK INHERENT IN THE WORK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the root plaintiff tripped over in a landscaped area was inherent to the area and was not actionable:

The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries he alleges he sustained when he tripped and fell as he was walking on a landscaped area on the defendants’ property. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that on the date at issue, he had parked his vehicle in the defendants’ parking lot and then stepped up over a curb and walked through a landscaped area of the grounds adjacent to the parking lot as a way of accessing the sidewalk to the defendants’ store. The landscaped area consisted of trees, shrubs, and mulch, and near the plaintiff’s parking spot, there was a gap in the shrubbery. The plaintiff was walking through the gap when he tripped and fell on a root just below the surface of the mulch. …

… [A] landowner “will not be held liable for injuries arising from a condition on the property that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property, and that could be reasonably anticipated by those using it” … . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the root that had caused the plaintiff to trip and fall was inherent or incidental to the landscaped area and that it could be reasonably anticipated by those using it … . Miano v Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02453, Second Dept 4-11-18

​NEGLIGENCE (THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))/ROOTS (SLIP AND FALL, THE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WALKING THROUGH A LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT WAS INHERENT TO THE NATURE OF THE AREA AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT))

,

A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim. Petitioner alleged she fell and was injured while riding a bus owned by the county. A county police report was made about the incident. The Second Department held that the fact that the county was aware of the accident does not demonstrate the county was aware of the essential facts constituting the claim:

“In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, [the] court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, whether the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense, and whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim”… . “While the presence or the absence of any one of the factors is not necessarily determinative, whether the municipality had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is of great importance”… . “The determination of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the respondents received timely, actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim by reason of a police accident report filled out by an officer who responded to the scene of the petitioner’s accident. “Generally, knowledge of a police officer or of a police department cannot be considered actual knowledge of the public corporation itself regarding the essential facts of a claim” … . The fact that the Nassau County Police Department had actual knowledge of the accident, without more, cannot be considered actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim against the respondents … . Matter of Cruz v Transdev Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02463, Second Dept 4-11-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSES (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to discover the reports of other accidents involving defendant bus driver. Plaintiff’s children were injured after getting off the bus. Both the driver (Morin) and his employer (CDTA) were sued. Although the bill of particulars mentioned negligent hiring and retention, the complaint did not. Therefore there were no grounds for the discovery of the reports of prior accidents:

The allegations of negligence set forth in the complaint, as they relate to Morin and CDTA, pertain solely to Morin’s operation of the bus on the day of the incident … . Specifically, the complaint alleges that, after discharging the infant passengers, Morin “negligently remained in that position for a considerable period of time, causing the bus to obstruct the path of travel for other vehicles in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law[].” It further alleges that Morin was “negligent, careless and reckless” in failing to illuminate his hazard lights or any other signal to alert drivers of the presence of the bus during that time. Critically absent from the complaint is any allegation of direct negligence on the part of CDTA. Thus, the complaint “gives not the slightest indication of a theory of liability of negligent supervision[, hiring or retention]”… . Although plaintiff alleged a theory of negligent hiring and retention in his bill of particulars, “[i]t is well settled that a bill of particulars is intended to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial . . . [, and it] may not be used to allege a new theory not originally asserted in the complaint” … . Schonbrun v DeLuke, 2018 NY Slip Op 02386, Third Dept 4-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BUSES (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BUSES, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (ACCIDENT REPORTS, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT REPORTS (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION (ACCIDENT REPORTS, DISCOVERY , ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined several distinct issues (not all summarized here) that arose from a lawsuit alleging the defendant doctors and hospital performed a c-section birth against plaintiff’s wishes. The cause of action based upon defendants’ performing an unwanted procedure alleged an intentional tort and, based upon the one-year statute of limitations, was untimely. The Public Health Law cause of action was not appropriate because those statutes and regulations do not apply to hospitals (as opposed to residential health care facilities):

… [I]t is clear from the statutory scheme that Public Health Law § 2803-c was not intended to apply to hospitals.

Public Health Law § 2801-d authorizes a private right of action by patients of “residential health care facilities” for the violation of rights enumerated in Public Health Law § 2803-c. “Residential health care facility” is defined by the statute as “a nursing home or facility providing health-related service” (Public Health Law § 2801[3]). Since the hospital is not a “residential health care facility,” this provision is not applicable to the hospital … . The fact that the legislature did not specify that a private right of action was available against hospitals indicates that providing a private right of action to hospital patients was contrary to the legislative scheme. Therefore, no private right of action under the Public Health Law should be inferred … . Dray v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02314, Second Dept 4-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (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