You are here: / Negligence

A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff testified he used the dryer in the laundry room and noticed no water on the floor. He returned to the laundry room a half hour or more later. The room was empty at that time, as it had been when he put his clothes in the dryer. After taking his clothes from dryer he slipped on water near the dryer. He did not notice the water until after he fell. The defendant submitted plaintiff’s testimony in support of the summary judgment motion. The fact that water on the floor could be a recurring condition in the laundry room was not enough to defeat the evidence of a lack of constructive notice of the condition:

​

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the alleged hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence… . To provide constructive notice, “a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, including the decedent’s deposition testimony, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it… . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A general awareness that the laundry room floor could become wet was legally insufficient to constitute constructive notice of the particular condition that allegedly caused the decedent to slip and fall … . Adamson v Radford Mgt. Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 05057, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

NEGLIGENCE (A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (SLIP AND FALL, WATER ON FLOOR OF LAUNDRY ROOM, A GENERAL AWARENESS THAT WATER COULD COLLECT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE OF A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

,

WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against the city as owner of the sidewalk where plaintiff slipped and fell on ice should have been dismissed because the city did not have written notice of the condition:

​

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) “limits the City’s duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” … . Accordingly, “prior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City” … . The only recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement involve situations in which either the municipality created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, or a special use confers a special benefit upon the municipality … . Neither exception is applicable here. “Transitory conditions present on a roadway or walkway such as debris, oil, ice, or sand have been found to constitute potentially dangerous conditions for which prior written notice must be given before liability may be imposed upon a municipality” … . Puzhayeva v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 05107, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE, SIDEWALKS, ICE, WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/WRITTEN NOTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, SIDEWALKS, WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

​

, ,

COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL.

The Second Department determined governmental function immunity protected the county from suit in this motorcycle accident case. Plaintiff was riding in a charity event and alleged the traffic control by the county caused his injury:

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the County defendants were negligent in failing to properly control traffic along the route of the motorcycle run, and specifically, at the location of the accident. …

[T]he County defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to the governmental function immunity defense with evidence that the conduct complained of involved the exercise of the police officers’ professional judgment, and was therefore discretionary … . Farrago v County of Suffolk, 2nd Dept 6-21-172017 NY Slip Op 05067

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY, COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL)/TRAFFIC CONTROL (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, IMMUNITY, COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL)

,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted in this gym-class injury case. There was no showing the school was made aware of its potential liability during the 90 days following the injury. Although a medical claim form was filled out and submitted to the school four days after the incident, the description of the incident did not alert the school to potential liability for the fall from gym equipment:

​

Although a medical claim form was prepared and submitted to the School District four days after the accident occurred, it merely indicated that the infant petitioner lacerated his eyebrow and fractured his wrist when he fell after hanging from a pull-up bar during physical education class. Where, as here, “the incident and the injury do not necessarily occur only as the result of fault for which [the School District] may be liable”… , the School District’s “knowledge of the accident and the injury, without more, does not constitute actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim'” … . Rather, “[i]n order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, [a school district] must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim” … . Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the medical claim form did not provide the School District with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the petitioners’ claims that, inter alia, it was negligent in its ownership, operation, management, maintenance, and control of the area where the accident occurred, that it was negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of its employees and agents, or that its employees were negligent in supervising the injured petitioner and responding to the accident … .

Furthermore, the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the delay in filing the petition … . While the injured petitioner here is an infant, the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and the delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim were not the product of the infant petitioner’s infancy

​

Finally, as to the issue of substantial prejudice, the petitioners presented no evidence or plausible argument that their delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the School District in defending on the merits … . The assertion contained in the affirmation of the petitioners’ attorney which was submitted in support of their motion, that the School District was not substantially prejudiced by the delay in serving a notice of claim, was conclusory and, without more, inadequate to satisfy the petitioners’ minimal initial burden with respect to this factor … . Matter of D.M. v Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05090, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, NO SHOWING SCHOOL WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY)/

,

NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the document submitted by plaintiff was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. Therefore the document could be served without permission from the court:

​

In his original bill of particulars dated February 8, 2006, the injured plaintiff alleged that he sustained permanent personal injuries, including depression, insomnia, agitation, poor concentration, loneliness, and tenseness, and that his injuries were accompanied by distress, depression, stress, and psychological difficulties. After the Supreme Court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed on appeal … and the case was restored to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs served, pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), an expert witness disclosure dated August 4, 2013, and the affidavit of their expert psychologist dated April 27, 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served a supplemental bill of particulars dated February 17, 2015, alleging the additional injuries or damages of post-traumatic stress disorder and future costs of long-term psychotherapy. In the order appealed from, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the supplemental bill of particulars and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to compel the defendant to accept the supplemental bill of particulars. The court found that the supplemental bill of particulars sought to add new injuries, thereby rendering it an amended bill of particulars, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the inordinate delay in seeking leave to include the new injuries. The plaintiffs appeal.

Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff in a personal injury action may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing “continuing special damages and disabilities,” without leave of the court at any time, but not less than 30 days prior to trial, if it alleges “no new cause of action” or claims no “new injury.” Here, the plaintiffs sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in the original bill of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries … . Since the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars, and was served more than 30 days prior to trial, leave of court was not required … . Khosrova v Hampton Bays Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05075, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILL OF PARTICULARS, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPPLEMENTAL VERSUS AMENDED, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)

, ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict against the transit authority in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. Plaintiff regularly used the unlighted subway stairway when he returned from work without incident. The jury, therefore, could reasonably have found plaintiff’s use of the unlighted stairway was not negligent:

​

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that he fell while descending a covered and unlit exterior subway staircase owned by defendant. The jury found that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the lighting on the staircase, that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries’, and that plaintiff was not negligent.

The trial court erred in setting aside as against the weight of the evidence the jury’s finding that plaintiff was not negligent … . Although plaintiff conceded that he descended an unlighted staircase, the jury could reasonably have concluded that his decision to do so was not negligent, as plaintiff testified that he used the same staircase every night while coming home from work, and had in fact done so without incident on previous evenings when the lights were inoperative. Sanchez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04899, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict against the transit authority in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. Plaintiff regularly used the unlighted subway stairway when he returned from work without incident. The jury, therefore, could reasonably have found plaintiff’s use of the unlighted stairway was not negligent:

​

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff alleges that he fell while descending a covered and unlit exterior subway staircase owned by defendant. The jury found that defendant was negligent in its maintenance of the lighting on the staircase, that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries’, and that plaintiff was not negligent.

The trial court erred in setting aside as against the weight of the evidence the jury’s finding that plaintiff was not negligent … . Although plaintiff conceded that he descended an unlighted staircase, the jury could reasonably have concluded that his decision to do so was not negligent, as plaintiff testified that he used the same staircase every night while coming home from work, and had in fact done so without incident on previous evenings when the lights were inoperative. Sanchez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04899, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, NEGLIGENCE, THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE JURY COULD HAVE REASONABLY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S REGULAR USE OF THE UNLIGHTED SUBWAY STAIRWAY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a high school student who committed suicide was properly dismissed. The decision lays out in detail the actions of the defendants and the expert affidavits submitted to demonstrate the defendants did not deviate from an appropriate standard of care in assessing plaintiff’s decedent’s mental state or in releasing plaintiff’s decedent to his parents. The plaintiffs’ expert affidavit did not demonstrate any substantive deviation from appropriate care, or any expertise in emergency medicine. Shortly after release from defendants’ care, which related to drug abuse, not suicidal ideation, plaintiff’s decedent shot himself in the head:

The burden … shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants departed from the accepted standard of care … . To that end, plaintiffs primarily relied on an affirmation of Igor Galynker, a psychiatrist, who opined that Duplan [the psychiatrist] departed from accepted practice in several ways, including by failing to personally evaluate decedent and failing to consider several factors that increased decedent’s risk for suicide. As to CMC [the emergency care provider], Galynker opined that it failed to establish procedures requiring Duplan to personally evaluate decedent and failed to create a “structured interview algorithm” for assessment of acute suicide risk, leading to serious errors on Beeby’s [the psychiatric nurse who interviewed plaintiff’s decedent] part. Yet, Galynker failed to provide any factual basis for his opinions … or point to any medical guidelines indicating that only a psychiatrist may conduct a mental health examination. Furthermore, Galynker’s assertion that Duplan had failed to consider several additional suicide risk factors is belied by Duplan’s testimony and the mental health evaluation, which reveal that Duplan was aware of and weighed such factors. Relatedly, Galynker never articulated how or why, if certain questions were asked or mnemonics/algorithms were used, material information would have been revealed that would have altered the medical decision rendered. Consequently, with regard to Duplan and CMC, Supreme Court properly found Galynker’s affirmation to be conclusory and lacking sufficient detail to raise a triable issue of fact … . With respect to Koch [the emergency medicine physician], Galynker opined that he deviated from accepted practice by, among other things, failing to discuss the case with Duplan and failing to consider the effects of decedent’s drug use. Notably, however, Galynker did not indicate that he had any training or expertise in the field of emergency medicine … . Therefore, plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action were properly dismissed. Gallagher v Cayuga Med. Ctr. 2017 NY Slip Op 04941, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SUICIDE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SUICIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED)

, ,

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion by Justice Andrias, determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the school nurse’s failure to tell plaintiff to remove a contraceptive device (NuvaRing) was a proximate cause of blood clots which resulted in severe brain damage. The dissent argued plaintiff’s expert affidavit was conclusory and speculative, insufficient to defeat defendant’s expert’s opinion that removing the NuvaRing would not have prevented the blood clots which occurred seven days after plaintiff complained to the nurse practitioner about chest pains:

​

Montefiore [the defendant which employed the nurse practitioner at the school clinic] made a prima facie case through its expert, Dr. Bardack, that it was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, plaintiff’s expert raised an issue of fact concerning causation. We disagree with the dissent that the affidavit of Dr. Gold was speculative and conclusory. Dr. Gold specifically opined that if the nurse practitioner had properly assessed plaintiff, instructed her to remove the NuvaRing, and referred her for further assessment, plaintiff’s subsequent injuries and complications would have been avoided. Had the nurse properly assessed plaintiff as suffering from the symptoms of a blood clot, she could have instructed plaintiff to remove the ring immediately, thereby at least beginning to correct any clotting imbalance. As Montefiore’s expert acknowledges, “clot risk is gradually decreased after the ring is removed.” Thus, while the nurse was not in a position to treat clots, she certainly was in a position to make the diagnosis and to direct the plaintiff to remove the likely source of her symptoms, lessening the risk of an adverse outcome.

Montefiore asserts that even if the NuvaRing had been removed on June 1, thromboembolism was nonetheless likely to ensue, relying on FDA guidelines concerning presurgical protocols; Dr. Gold, however, opined that the risk of blood clotting would have subsided had the ring been removed. At this stage, plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit suffices to raise a factual issue as to the element of causation.

It may well be that the medical professionals who subsequently treated plaintiff are also at fault for failing to work her up for thromboembolism and failing to remove or direct her to remove the NuvaRing. Issues of relative culpability await resolution at trial. Plaintiff’s submissions raise an issue of fact as to the liability of the nurse practitioner sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Adams v Pilarte, 2017 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT OPINION, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT OPINION, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)/NUVARING (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE)

, ,

OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD.

The Third Department determined claimant’s negligence suit against the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) was properly dismissed because the OMRDD’s oversight of private companies providing care to the developmentally disabled was a government function and there was no special relationship with the resident, claimant’s daughter. Therefore the state was immune from suti. Claimant alleged the resident was abused while in the care of Camary Statewide Services, a private, nonprofit corporation that was, at that time, certified by the OMRDD:

​

OMRDD conducted annual or biannual reviews, which included a sampling of records and interviews of staff members and residents, to determine whether Camary continued to be eligible for an operating certificate to provide care and treatment to developmentally disabled individuals … . Where noncompliance was discovered, OMRDD could require private service providers to take corrective measures to address the deficiency or, where the noncompliance was severe, revoke, suspend or limit the service provider’s operating certificate … . In the event of noncompliance, OMRDD would provide guidance to the service provider, but it would not take affirmative steps to bring the provider into compliance with the applicable regulations. Moreover, OMRDD’s oversight over, and regulation of, Camary was plainly undertaken to further the general goal of protecting the health and safety of persons with developmental disabilities. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the actions, or inactions, in question were governmental in nature … . * * *

​

… [C]laimant argues that the requisite special relationship was formed by OMRDD’s violation of Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) … , as well as the reporting rules in 14 NYCRR former part 624 … . As relevant here, Mental Hygiene Law former § 13.07 (c) …  charged OMRDD with ensuring that the care and treatment provided to persons with developmental disabilities were of high quality and that the personal and civil rights of persons receiving such care and treatment were protected. As for the reporting rules, OMRDD promulgated detailed regulations requiring that reportable incidents, which included instances in which a resident sustained an injury requiring more than first aid, be recorded and investigated by the service provider under a defined procedure, subject to review by OMRDD. Undoubtedly, these statutory and regulatory provisions were enacted for the benefit of persons with developmental disabilities, a class within which the resident certainly falls.

However, no private right of action is expressly created by the implementing statute and the relevant regulations and, contrary to claimant’s contentions, one may not be fairly implied. T.T. v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04940, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/IMMUNITY (OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (IMMUNITY, OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, IMMUNITY,  OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (NEGLIGENCE, IMMUNITY,  OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD)

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