You are here: / Negligence
,

IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division (and potentially affecting hundreds of recent rulings on summary judgment motions in negligence cases), determined that a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault to be entitled to partial summary judgment on liability. Whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent is, under the controlling statutes, is a damages issue:

CPLR 3212, which governs summary judgment motions, provides that “[t]he motion shall be granted if . . . the cause of action . . . [is] established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” … . The motion for summary judgment must also “show that there is no defense to the cause of action” … . Further, subsection [c] of the same section sets forth the procedure for obtaining partial summary judgment and states that “[i]f it appears that the only triable issues of fact arising on a motion for summary judgment relate to the amount or extent of damages . . . the court may, when appropriate for the expeditious disposition of the controversy, order an immediate trial of such issues of fact raised by the motion” … .

Article 14-A of the CPLR contains our State’s codified comparative negligence principles. CPLR 1411 provides that:

“In any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” … .

CPLR 1412 further states that “[c]ulpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages, in accordance with [CPLR 1411], shall be an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the party asserting the defense.” Placing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with the plain language of CPLR 1412. Rodriguez v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02287, CtApp 4-3-18

​NEGLIGENCE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))/DAMAGES (NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN A DECISION POTENTIALLY AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF RECENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT TO BE ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS PURELY A DAMAGES ISSUE (CT APP))

,

PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The risk to plaintiff was inherent in her work:

… [T]he plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident she was employed by a nonparty to clean the subject building. Her duties included the weekly removal of garbage and material to be recycled from the basement of the building. The plaintiff was engaged in the performance of that task when the accident occurred. When asked what caused her to fall, she explained that “there was a lot of garbage” in the basement, including “cardboard all around.”

Where, as here, the plaintiff is a worker whose claim is based upon premises liability, the landowner’s duty is to provide the worker with a safe place to work. A landowner “need not guard against hazards inherent in the worker’s work, hazards caused by the condition the worker is engaged to repair, or hazards which are readily observed by someone of the worker’s age, intelligence, and experience” … .

Under the circumstances here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the risk of slipping on a piece of cardboard in the building’s basement was inherent in the plaintiff’s work … . Rojas v 1000 42nd St., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02194, Second Dept 3-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S JOB ENTAILED CLEANING UP GARBAGE, SLIPPING ON A PIECE OF CARDBOARD WAS INHERENT IN HER WORK, PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Both the defendant driver (Abbott) and the plaintiff passenger (Crystal) had consumed alcohol before the accident. The action was brought by Crystal’s mother on behalf of Crystal. Abbott had attempted a u-turn and was struck by the car behind her (driven by another defendant, Diederich):

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, she failed to establish, prima facie, that Crystal was free from culpable conduct with regard to the causation of her injuries. In support of her motion, the plaintiff relied upon, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of Abbott and Crystal. The testimony of Abbott and Crystal that they had consumed alcohol at a fraternity party prior to the subject accident raised questions of fact as to whether Crystal had knowledge that Abbott may have been intoxicated, which raised triable issues of fact regarding her comparative negligence … . Since triable issues of fact existed as to the comparative negligence of Crystal, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability against the appellants (… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. Vuksanaj v Abbott, 2018 NY Slip Op 02199, Second Dept 3-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTOXICATION, BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INTOXICATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PASSENGER,  BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant Dominguez’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the emergency doctrine was properly granted. The court noted that the emergency doctrine usually presents a question of fact but the egregious circumstances warranted summary judgment here. Plaintiff was a passenger in Chuquillanqui’s vehicle which was struck by a car driven by Dominguez:

Dominguez submitted evidence showing that the accident occurred when Chuquillanqui attempted an illegal U-turn from the far-right lane of a two-way road that had two lanes traveling in each direction. Dominguez was operating a vehicle traveling in the same direction as Chuquillanqui’s vehicle, but in the left lane at some distance back from Chuquillanqui’s vehicle. Dominguez testified that he had only had a couple of seconds to react when Chuquillanqui abruptly began the U-turn across his right of way in the left lane, and that he unsuccessfully attempted to avoid the collision by turning his vehicle to the left … .

Plaintiff’s opposition was insufficient to raise factual issues as to whether an emergency situation existed prior to the collision, and as to whether Dominguez’s actions before the accident were reasonable under the circumstances. While the “reasonableness of a defendant driver’s reaction to an emergency is normally left to the trier of fact,” in “egregious circumstances,” as here, the issue may be resolved on summary judgment … . Morales v Chuquillanqui, 2018 NY Slip Op 02139, First Dept 3-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/ TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, EGREGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT DRIVER PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant police officer involved a traffic accident with plaintiff was proceeding through a red light or a green light on his way to an (another) accident scene. If the light was red, the reckless disregard standard would apply to the officer’s driving. If the light was green, the normal negligence standard would apply:

We reject defendants’ contention that the color of the traffic light is not a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment. If the factfinder determines that defendant officer was engaged in the exempt conduct of proceeding past a steady red signal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [b] [2]), then the reckless disregard standard of care would apply under the circumstances presented herein … . If, however, the factfinder credits defendant officer’s account that he was proceeding through a green light, then the alleged injury-causing conduct by defendant officer would be governed by principles of ordinary negligence… . Inasmuch as the resolution of that factual issue will determine the standard of care by which the factfinder must evaluate defendant officer’s conduct … , we conclude that the court erred in determining on the submissions before it that the reckless disregard standard applies as a matter of law. Furthermore, the determination of the color of the traffic light at the time of the collision, and each driver’s compliance with the standard of care that will apply upon resolution of that material factual issue, depends on the memory and credibility of witnesses … . Inasmuch as a court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is ” issue-finding, rather than issue-determination’ ” … , we reject defendants’ contention that they are entitled to summary judgment at this juncture … . Oddo v City of Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 02041, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (POLICE OFFICERS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS DISREGARD OR NORMAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD APPLIES IN THIS POLICE CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action based upon a cancer misdiagnosis was time-barred. The misdiagnosis was made before the statute of limitations for cancer misdiagnosis was changed (it now runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the misdiagnosis). The court rejected the attempt to extend the statute of limitations by asserting fraud-related causes of action based upon the malpractice and alleged concealment of the misdiagnosis:

Defendants … contend that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that they are not estopped from invoking the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. We agree. “The elements of a cause of action for fraud in connection with charges of medical malpractice are knowledge on the part of the physician of the fact of his [or her] malpractice and of [the] patient’s injury in consequence thereof, coupled with a subsequent intentional, material misrepresentation by [the physician] to [the] patient known by [the physician] to be false at the time it was made, and on which the patient [justifiably] relied to his [or her] damage’ ” … . “The damages resulting from the fraud must be separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice” … . Additionally, “a defendant may be estopped to plead the [s]tatute of [l]imitations where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action”… . However, “without more, concealment by a physician or failure to disclose his [or her] own malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action in fraud or deceit separate and different from the customary malpractice action, thereby entitling the plaintiff to bring his [or her] action within the longer period limited for such claims” … . Forbes v Caris Life Sciences, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02086, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a report concerning an investigation by the Department of Health which cited defendant health system for failure to inform plaintiff and his family of the unintentional disconnection of a heart-lung machine was not subject to disclosure:

Defendant met its burden of establishing that the information contained in the report was ” generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-j’ “… . Thus, the information contained in the report is expressly exempted from disclosure under CPLR article 31 pursuant to the confidentiality conferred on information gathered by defendant in accordance with Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention that the privilege is “negated” because the report purportedly contains information that was improperly omitted from Pasek’s [plaintiff’s] medical records, it is well settled that “information which is privileged is not subject to disclosure no matter how strong the showing of need or relevancy”… . Indeed, the purpose of the privilege “is to enhance the objectivity of the review process’ and to assure that medical review [or quality assurance] committees may frankly and objectively analyze the quality of health services rendered’ by hospitals . . . , and thereby improve the quality of medical care” … . Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02069, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, REPORT RELATED TO CITING DEFENDANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOR FAILURE TO INFORM PLAINTIFF AND HIS FAMILY OF THE UNINTENTIONAL DISCONNECTION OF THE HEART-LUNG MACHINE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 31, EDUCATION LAW 6527 AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2805-m (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant school district could not have foreseen the incident in which the plaintiff’s high school classmate injured plaintiff in gym class. The classmate put plaintiff in a choke hold from behind and plaintiff fell to the floor on his face. The classmate’s violent behavior when he was younger, three years before the gym class incident, was deemed insufficient to put the school on notice of the classmate’s propensity for violence:

“In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct is generally required because, obviously, school personnel cannot reasonably be expected to guard against all of the sudden, spontaneous acts that take place among students daily” … . Thus, “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … . “Summary judgment must be granted if the proponent makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact,’ and the opponent fails to rebut that showing” … . …

Defendant’s submissions … established that there were no prior incidents and no history of any animosity between the two students … . Indeed, the classmate testified that he intended only to “horse around” and that he “[d]idn’t mean anything by it.” Moreover, the classmate had never engaged in disorderly, insubordinate, disruptive, or violent conduct in any of the gym teacher’s classes prior to the subject incident. … [W]e agree with defendant that the classmate’s overall disciplinary record is insufficient to create an issue of fact whether the subject incident could reasonably have been anticipated. Although the classmate had an extensive disciplinary history, the majority of the incidents involved insubordinate and disruptive behavior, and the instances of violent and endangering conduct occurred when the classmate was in sixth through eighth grade, with his last citation for violent conduct occurring in April 2009, i.e., three years prior to the subject incident when the classmate was in 11th grade … . We thus conclude that the classmate’s prior violent and endangering conduct was too remote to provide defendant with sufficiently specific knowledge or notice that the classmate posed a danger to other students in gym class … . Hale v Holley Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 02033, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/STUDENTS (ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))

REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in his action against the rear-most driver (Lipome) which struck a stopped car (Foley’s car) causing chain-reaction collisions. Plaintiff was subsequently struck by another car (driven by Hourt) after he got out of his car to check on the other drivers. The rear-most driver who caused the chain-reaction accident (Lipome) was not liable for the subsequent accident (when plaintiff was on foot and struck by Hourt):

” [T]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility’ ” … , and “[i]t is well established that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, [nonnegligent] explanation for the accident”… . Here, plaintiff met his initial burden of demonstrating that Lipome was negligent in rear-ending Foley’s vehicle, which undisputedly caused the chain-reaction accident. Lipome has not provided any nonnegligent explanation for the collision and, indeed, it appears from the record that Lipome essentially admitted that she was at fault for rear-ending Foley’s vehicle. …

We agree with Lipome, however, that she is entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her insofar as it relates to the accident between plaintiff and Hourt, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. Lipome’s negligence in the chain-reaction accident “did nothing more than to furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which [plaintiff’s] injury was made possible and which was brought about by the intervention of a new, independent and efficient cause” … , i.e., plaintiff’s conduct in walking back to the accident scene. Prior to plaintiff’s accident with Hourt, the situation resulting from the initial rear-end accident ” was a static, completed occurrence,’ . . . [and] [t]he risk undertaken by plaintiff’ [in walking back to the rear-end accident scene] was created by himself” … . Gustke v Nickerson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02087, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENTS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/FURNISH CONDITION FOR ACCIDENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action against the city and a city police officer (DeBellis) in connection with, inter alia, warrantless home visits by the officer purportedly concerning the well-being of plaintiff’s child and allegedly false complaints by the officer to the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS):

… [A]lthough not expressly pleaded, the factual allegations in the complaint fit within a cause of action against DeBellis for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her alleged malicious or reckless false reporting to ACS and malicious campaign of harassment. …

…[W]e cannot say, as a matter of law, that DeBellis’s actions did not rise to the requisite level of outrageous conduct. The facts alleged by plaintiff describe both (1) a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment and intimidation and (2) an abuse of power. …

Plaintiff has also stated a claim against defendants under 42 USC § 1983 for deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, specifically, her right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from warrantless and unlawful entries into the home … . …

Despite … allegations of repeated notice to DeBellis’s superiors of her actions, there is no indication … any action was taken to restrain her. Accordingly … plaintiff has stated a claim for holding the City liable under § 1983 on account of its gross negligence or deliberate indifference to DeBellis’s unconstitutional actions … . …

…[Plaintiff] states a claim against the City for negligent supervision and retention of DeBellis … . Under this theory, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee outside the scope of his or her employment … . Contrary to the City’s argument, the facts permit an inference that DeBellis was acting outside of the scope of her employment, and, as plaintiff argues, “had some personal axe to grind.” Scollar v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02032, First Dept 3-22-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983)  (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND-OR THE CITY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST 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