You are here: / Negligence
,

FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to grant summary judgment dismissing a portion of the complaint which alleged inadequate lighting as a cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall.  Plaintiff alleged she tripped over a rolled up mat after voting at an elementary school:

​

The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes information sufficient to enable the municipality to investigate the claim … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ notice of claim, which set forth [plaintiff] was “caused to fall as a result of a rolled up mat” which was positioned several feet in front of the door inside Hiawatha Elementary School, included information which was sufficient to enable the defendants to investigate the claim. * * *

​

Here, testimony at the hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, which established the lighting conditions at the time and place of [plaintiff’s] accident, supplemented the notice of claim and provided the defendants with additional information regarding the manner in which the claim arose … . Moreover, an incident report prepared by the defendants’ employee shortly after [plaintiff’s] accident noted that the area where she fell was dark due to a power loss at the building. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs’ bill of particulars, which alleged, inter alia, that the occurrence and resulting injury were caused by the defendants’ negligence in “placing a rolled up mat in the walkway in a poorly lit area in front of the exit from the school” did not substantially alter the nature of the plaintiffs’ claim. * * *

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the power outage did not relieve them of their duty to address the allegedly dangerous condition created by the loss of power which may have obscured the mat from view … . Moreover, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the rolled up mat was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . Lipani v Hiawatha Elementary Sch., 2017 NY Slip Op 06436, Second Dept 9-13-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/LIGHTING (SLIP AND FALL, FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff’s decedent had run out of gas and was struck from behind by defendant. The Second Department held that plaintiff had not demonstrated freedom from comparative fault:

​

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action alleging negligence, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing, prima facie, not only that the defendant was negligent, but that he or she was free from comparative fault … . Here, the plaintiff failed to meet that burden, as her own evidence, which included the defendants’ expert witness disclosure, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the decedent failed to warn other drivers of the hazard posed by his stalled vehicle, including by failing to keep his headlights illuminated, and, if so, whether such failure contributed to the defendant driver’s failure to see the decedent’s vehicle before the collision … . Palmer v Ecco III Enters., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06446, Second Dept 9-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant corporation’s (FHGC’s) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly granted. FHGC was re-sodding an area near the curb. FHGC’s employee signaled to defendant driver to stop. Defendant driver (Miketta)  then backed down the road and struck plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff sued Miketta and FHGC. The court held that the order to stop merely furnished a condition for the accident to occur, but was not a proximate cause of the accident:

… “[L]iability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event’ but was not one of its causes” … .

… FHGC demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that its employees’ conduct in performing work near the roadway merely furnished the condition or occasion for the accident, and was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries. Miketta’s decision to reverse her vehicle and drive back down the one-way street, ultimately striking the decedent, was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Goldstein v Kingston, 2017 NY Slip Op 06429, Second Dept 9-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (SIGNALING THE DRIVER TO STOP FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER’S DECISION TO BACK UP WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined the corporate veil was properly pierced, a defense expert’s testimony was properly excluded, and millions in damages for pre-impact terror, conscious pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages, were warranted. However, the court deemed the damages awarded by the jury excessive. The defendants were responsible for ordering a new part for a construction crane defendants provided at a construction site. There was evidence the manufacturer of the part was known to be incompetent but was chosen by the defendants anyway to cut costs. The defendants were aware of serious flaws in a similar part made by the same manufacturer. There was evidence the required testing procedures for the new part were deliberately circumvented by the defendants. The evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the new part failed causing the crane to fall 200 feet, fatally injuring the plaintiffs, the crane operator (Leo) and a co-worker (Kurtaj) on the ground:

​

… [O]ne individual (Lomma) exercised domination and control over three separate corporations which he treated as one entity.

There was … sufficient evidence to permit the jury to assess personal liability against Lomma. Contrary to Lomma’s arguments, plaintiffs presented substantial evidence of Lomma’s personal participation in the corporate defendants’ affirmatively tortious acts launching the dangerous instrumentality that caused the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents … . …

The trial court properly precluded the proposed testimony of defense expert James Wiethorn, which not only was not based on facts in the record, but also contradicted facts in the record … . * * *

​

Preimpact terror is a sub-category of conscious pain and suffering … . * * *

​

While Lomma and his companies, which dominated the crane rental market in New York, may not have intended to cause plaintiffs’ deaths, these deaths nevertheless arose from a series of calculated decisions made by Lomma over a period of months, during which time Lomma placed profit over the safety of construction workers and the public, despite having multiple opportunities to change course. * * *

​

“[I]t is the duty of the court to keep a verdict for punitive damages within reasonable bounds considering the purpose to be achieved as well as the mala fides of the defendant in the particular case”… . Moreover, “[a]lthough states possess considerable discretion over the imposition of punitive damages, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized that there are constitutional limitations on such awards, and that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments upon a tortfeasor” … . Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06419, First Dept 9-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PIERCE CORPORATE VEIL, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/PIERCE CORPORATE VEIL (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))CRANES (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW  (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was a question of fact whether the defendant landlord had breached its duty to keep plaintiff’s apartment reasonably safe. Plaintiff was injured in a fire in his apartment which was determined to have started in electrical wiring. Plaintiff had complained over the years about the inadequacy of the number of electrical outlets and the condition of the outlets. Plaintiff used extension cords and a power strip compensate for the allegedly inadequate outlets. The issue is whether the landlord’s failure to upgrade the 1930’s electrical system in the apartment breached a duty owed plaintiff:

​

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed in plaintiff’s apartment that it failed to remedy … . Specifically, plaintiff’s expert raised factual issues as to whether the building’s 1930s electrical system constituted a dangerous condition and whether defendant was on notice of same. Although the expert, a professional engineer, did not personally inspect the premises, he based his opinion that the fire was caused by overloaded electrical wires on specific factual evidence in the record and his knowledge of consumers’ changed needs since the 1930s because of the invention and development of power-hungry personal appliances that simply require more electrical power … . Daly v 9 E. 36th LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06404, First Dept 9-5-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD-TENANT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))/ELECTRICAL WIRING (LANDLORD-TENANT, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM BREACHED A DUTY OWED TO THE TENANT TO KEEP THE APARTMENT SAFE, PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS INJURED IN A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE ELECTRICAL WIRING (FIRST DEPT))

,

LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged they were injured during a robbery and the landlord failed to provide sufficient protection in the form of a lock on an interior door through which the robbers gained entry. The Second Department held the landlord had demonstrated the break-in was not foreseeable because there had been no other similar break-ins:

“Landlords have a common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person” … . “To establish that criminal acts were foreseeable, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” …  ” Without evidentiary proof of notice of prior criminal activity, the owner’s duty reasonably to protect those using the premises from such activity never arises”‘… .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they lacked notice of the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject premises … . Golub v Louris, 2017 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 8-30-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (LANDLORD-TENANT, LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case was properly granted. The court held that the failure to remove ice and snow is a passive in nature and is not an affirmative creation of a dangerous condition that is exempt from the written notice requirement:

Here, the Town established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, including an affidavit from its Town Clerk, demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition alleged, and that it did not create the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Town created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence. The plaintiff’s reliance on San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco (16 NY3d 111) is misplaced. The Town’s failure to remove any snow or ice from the area where the subject accident occurred was passive in nature and does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence excepting it from prior written notice requirements … . Morreale v Town of Smithtown, 2017 NY Slip Op 06361, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT)/WRITTEN NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE, TOWN’S FAILURE TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver’s (Kostadinov’s) motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-car accident case should not have been granted. Kostadinov did not eliminate triable questions of fact about his comparative negligence:

Here, Kostadinov failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence submitted in support of his motion failed to establish that he was free from fault in the happening of the accident, or that the alleged negligence of the plaintiff and Karczewski were the sole proximate causes of the accident … . Specifically, the deposition testimony of all of the parties, submitted by Kostadinov in support of his motion, revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred (see id. at 934) and as to whether the impact between the plaintiff’s bicycle and Karczewski’s vehicle was a foreseeable consequence of Kostadinov reversing his vehicle against the flow of traffic within the subject intersection given the traffic conditions existing at the time of the accident … . Searless v Karczewski, 2017 NY Slip Op 06393, Second Dept 8-30-17

NEGLIGENCE (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice. The motions were dismissed on procedural grounds because they were filed and served a few days after the 60-day deadline imposed by the local court rules. The courts had been closed when the papers were supposed to be filed due to a storm. The 2nd Department went on to determine the merits. Plaintiff had experienced headaches over a period of years and had sought treatment for them. Eventually a benign brain tumor was discovered. In removing the tumor plaintiff was rendered legally blind. The malpractice action alleged a negligent failure to diagnose the tumor, and lack of informed consent. The court held that the continuing treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations even though the treatment was for headaches, not the tumor, because the presence of the tumor had not been diagnosed. The court went on to find that the informed consent cause of action was not viable because the alleged malpractice was a failure to diagnose, not the negligent performance of a surgical procedure:

… [T]he record presents issues of fact as to continuous treatment. As is well established, “the continuous treatment doctrine tolls the Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint” … . In addition, “[w]here the malpractice claim is based on an alleged failure to properly diagnose a condition, the continuous treatment doctrine may apply as long as the symptoms being treated indicate the presence of that condition” … . * * *

… [T]he informed consent claim lacks merit. As we have held, “[a] failure to diagnose cannot be the basis of a cause of action for lack of informed consent unless associated with a diagnostic procedure that involve[s] invasion or disruption of the integrity of the body'” … . Lewis v Rutkovsky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06342, First Dept 8-29-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a release plaintiff’s decedent (South) agreed to in 1997 did not preclude the instant suit. South alleged he had been exposed to asbestos made by Texaco on board ships during his long career in the Merchant Marine. South died of mesothelioma. The 1997 release mentioned mesothelioma as a possible result of asbestos exposure but the First Department determined it was not clear South knew he was suffering from mesothemiola at the time he signed the release (in return for $1750.00). The case was analyzed under federal admiralty law law (Jones Act):

… [W]e find that the release does not pass muster. To tease out the true intent South had when he signed the release, it is necessary to consider the context in which he did so. The 1997 complaint, while making generalized allegations that South had been exposed to asbestos, is exceedingly vague as to whether he had actually contracted an asbestos-related disease. To be sure, it mentions a “devastating pulmonary disease Plaintiff now suffers” and an exhaustive grab-bag of asbestos-related diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma to brain cancer. However, it is impossible to conclude from the complaint that South had actually received a diagnosis. Indeed, the “meager” consideration he received for resolving the claim suggests that he had not been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, much less one even approaching the severity of the mesothelioma that the complaint specifically alleges he had. The complaint leaves open that possibility, to the extent it seeks relief for fear of an asbestos-related disease and not for the disease itself. Accordingly, the risk of contracting an actual asbestos-related disease remained hypothetical to South, and we decline to read the release as if South understood the implications of such a disease but chose nonetheless to release Texaco from claims arising from it.

Further, if South had not received a definitive diagnosis at the time the 1997 complaint was filed, then the release, to the extent it warns him of the possibility of “a new and different diagnosis from the diagnosis as of the date of this Release,” does not reflect the actual circumstances known to him, since the words “new” and “different” suggest that South had already been diagnosed with a disease when he executed the release. Rather, the lack of an actual diagnosis reveals the language in the release as mere boilerplate, and not the result of an agreement the parameters of which had been specifically negotiated and understood by South. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06343  First Dept 8-29-17

CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (FIRST DEPT))/MESOPTHEMIOLA (ASBESTOS, RELEASES, ALTHOUGH THE ASBESTOS LIABILITY RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 MENTIONED MESOTHEMIOLA, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEASE WAS DEEMED TO BE BOILERPLATE WHICH DID NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT SUIT ALLEGING DEATH FROM MESOTHEMIOLA (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