You are here: / Negligence
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal of the “lack of informed consent” cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the breast implants she received were not of the type and size she requested . The proof submitted by the defendants did not demonstrate the consent form at issued complied with the standard for disclosure in this context:

Although the defendants demonstrated that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based upon the size of the implants used, the defendants failed to establish that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based on the type of implants used. The consent forms signed by the plaintiff stated that she would be receiving “gel” implants, but did not identify the particular brand or manufacturer of the implants. Although the defendants’ expert averred that the operative report indicated that “Palaia explained the risks, benefits and alternatives to [the plaintiff] prior to the procedure,” and noted that consent forms were signed, he failed to aver that “the consent form complied with the prevailing standard for such disclosures applicable to reasonable practitioners performing the same kind of surgery” … . Whitnum v Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 05710, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INFORMED CONSENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant failed to make out a prima facie case warranting summary judgment. Plaintiff was injured playing basketball on defendant’s property when he fell on a flower pot which was near the post supporting the backboard. The evidence failed to eliminate a triable issue whether the placement of the flower pot unreasonably increased the inherent risks:

 

… [D]efendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred the plaintiff’s recovery. The evidence submitted by the defendants, including testimony as to the size and placement of the flowerpot in close proximity to the paved court, failed to eliminate a triable issue as to whether its placement unreasonably increased the inherent risks of the activity … . Moreover, contrary to their contention, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition … .  Simone v Doscas, 2016 NY Slip Op 05709, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BASKETBALL (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the petitioners’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim against the city should have been granted. Petitioner was using a bicycle provided by New York City’s Citi Bike program when he struck a wheel stop and flipped over, injuring his head. In a federal diversity action stemming from the same incident, the city asserted an affirmative defense based upon petitioner’s failure to wear a helmet. Petitioner, in the federal action, was allowed thereafter to assert a negligence claim against the city based upon the city’s failure to rent helmets. Petitioner, in the state action, then sought both to amend the notice of claim and to file a late notice of claim to reflect the helmet allegation, as well as a negligent design allegation (re: placement of the wheel stop). The motion to amend was rejected by the First Department but the motion to file a late notice (General Municipal Law 50-3 (5)) was granted:

Here, to the extent that the allegations concerning the design of the station differ between the original notice of claim and the proposed amended notice of claim, the City unquestionably had actual notice of the claims in the latter document, based on the original notice of claim. Further, it was not prejudiced by petitioner’s amplification of the claims in the proposed amended notice, since the alleged defect was not transitory in nature … . * * *

We note that petitioner’s failure to use a helmet is akin to a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt in a motor vehicle case. It is well settled that any such failure does not go to comparative liability but rather to how damages, if any, should be assessed … . Further, the City bears the burden of proving that some or all of petitioner’s injuries would not have been received had he used a helmet … . Accordingly, petitioners had no reason to make a claim concerning the lack of helmets until the City raised the issue. Additionally, * * * the City cannot claim to be prejudiced where it chose to inject a mitigation defense into the federal action, and petitioners are merely trying to ensure that their notice of claim supports their effort to rebut that defense … . Matter of Corwin v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 7-28-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING OF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE AMENDED, A LATE NOTICE ASSERTING A NEW THEORY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)/BICYCLISTS (FAILURE TO WEAR A HELMET GOES TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)/HELMETS (BICYCLISTS, FAILURE TO WEAR A HELMET GOES TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE)

,

ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict, determined the trial court should not have given the jury the “error in judgment” charge in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff alleged defendant negligently diagnosed a lump as benign without any further diagnostic tests. The “error in judgment” theory does not apply in that circumstance:

… Supreme Court erred in giving an “error in judgment” charge (PJI 2:150 ¶ 5) over the plaintiff’s objection. “That charge is appropriate only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this case does not present a choice between one of two or more medically acceptable alternative treatments or techniques … . Rather, the defendant testified that he diagnosed the decedent, in January of 2002, with a benign condition “that was not urgent,” and he neither suspected cancer nor considered the option of sending the decedent for further diagnostic testing. Thus, the case presented the jury with the straightforward question of whether the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care in diagnosing the decedent with a benign condition in January of 2002, and the “error in judgment” charge was not warranted … . Lacqua v Silich, 2016 NY Slip Op 05628, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/MEDICAL MAPRACTICE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/JURY CHARGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/ERROR IN JUDGMENT CHARGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)

, ,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, CITY IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

The Second Department determined the City emergency response personnel did not enter into a special relationship with plaintiff’s decedent based upon the 911 operator’s assurance an ambulance was on its way. There was some confusion about where plaintiff’s decedent was located which resulted is some delay in the arrival of help:

Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that no special relationship existed between it and the decedent … . The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the firefighters did not assume an affirmative duty to act on the decedent’s behalf, and, in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Moreover, even assuming that the 911 operator’s assurance that an ambulance was on its way constituted an assumption by the defendant of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the decedent, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the decedent and the plaintiffs did not rely to their detriment on that assurance. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The record does not show that the plaintiffs were lulled by any assurance made by the 911 operator into a false sense of security that caused them “to forego other available avenues of protection” … . Holloway v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05627, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, CITY IMMUNE FROM SUIT)/ GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, CITY IMMUNE FROM SUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, CITY IMMUNE FROM SUIT)

,

WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined, where liability is conceded by stipulation, prejudgment interest runs from the date of the subsequent damages verdict, not the date of the stipulation. Here the damages trial was held 2 1/2 years after the stipulation was entered. Had liability been determined by “verdict, report or decision,” interest would have run from the liability determination:

When the determinations of liability and damages are made together, the computation of prejudgment interest under CPLR 5002 is straightforward … . When, however, the determinations of liability and damages are bifurcated, the general rule is that prejudgment interest under CPLR 5002 runs from the date of the “verdict, report or decision” as to liability, rather than from the date of the “verdict, report or decision” as to damages … . * * *

Stipulations are different. They are not adjudications made by a third party, but voluntary agreements, or contracts, by which the opposing parties themselves chart their own course in a way that makes sense for them… . * * *

Clearly, the Legislature did not expressly include stipulations in CPLR 5002. Had the Legislature wished to include stipulations, it easily could have done so, as it has in other statutes… . Mahoney v Brockbank, 2016 NY Slip Op 05630, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/NEGLIGENCE (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/INTEREST (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/DAMAGES (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)

MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined the motion to dismiss the demand for punitive damages was properly denied. The action stemmed from an physical confrontation between plaintiff and defendant, an off-duty police officer:

“Punitive damages may be awarded in an action to recover damages for assault” … , but “are permitted only when a defendant purposefully causes, or is grossly indifferent to causing, injury and defendant’s behavior cannot be said to be merely volitional” … . Defendant’s conduct, in other words, must reflect “a high degree of moral culpability, . . . [be] so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness, or . . . constitute[] willful or wanton negligence or recklessness” … . * * *

… [The] proof permits the finding that defendant pursued plaintiff and angrily confronted him over his perceived deficiencies as a driver, then physically subdued plaintiff and falsely accused him of starting the confrontation to ensure that he would be detained by police. If true, this aggressive and dishonest behavior by an off-duty state trooper is precisely the type of “morally culpable” behavior that defendant and others should be deterred from engaging in … . George v Albert, 2016 NY Slip Op 05613, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

NEGLIGENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/INTENTIONAL TORT (MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/ASSAULT (CIVIL ACTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)

,

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

The Third Department reversed the damages verdict in this medical malpractice action because of an erroneous comparative negligence jury instruction. Plaintiff, while at defendant hospital, has a seizure after he was given hot coffee. Plaintiff was burned when the coffee spilled on him. Although the comparative negligence instruction was appropriate with regard to whether plaintiff should have been given coffee, it was not appropriate with regard to the treatment for the burns:

A comparative negligence instruction is appropriate when there is evidence that a plaintiff may share responsibility for harm that was inflicted as a result of a defendant’s medical malpractice … . However, no comparative negligence instruction should be given when a plaintiff’s alleged negligence preceded the alleged medical malpractice and is not otherwise alleged to have contributed to the harm resulting from the malpractice. A plaintiff’s prior conduct “is not relevant, since the defendant’s liability extends only to that portion of [the plaintiff’s] injuries attributable to the defendant’s malpractice” … . Here, although there was evidence from which the jury could have found that plaintiff shared responsibility for the initial coffee spill, defendant made no claim at trial that plaintiff had any such shared responsibility for defendant’s subsequent deviations from the accepted standard of care in treating plaintiff’s injuries, nor was there any evidence adduced at trial from which the jury could have found that plaintiff shared such responsibility … . Vallone v Saratoga Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05526, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/JURY INSTRUCTION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

, ,

PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendants Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) and National Grid Electric Services (NGES) were not protected by government-function immunity. The lawsuit alleged defendants were negligent in not cutting off electrical power during Hurricane Sandy, resulting in fires which damaged plaintiffs’ property. The court held the defendants were performing proprietary, not governmental, functions and standards of ordinary negligence therefore applied:

… [T]he provision of electricity is properly categorized as a proprietary function. The provision of electricity has traditionally been a private enterprise in this State, and the Legislature clearly created LIPA as a public authority to substitute for a private enterprise … . * * *

… [T]he functions of electric utilities in the ordinary course of providing electricity and in responding adequately to a hurricane are both part of the proprietary core functions of their business. True, here, the appellants’ actions, because of the size of LIPA’s customer base, affected many people and many businesses. True, too, LIPA’s response to the hurricane may have involved complex considerations. But every private electric utility in the region faced the same hurricane. Heeran v Long Is. Power Auth. (LIPA), 2016 NY Slip Op 05486, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/PUBLIC UTILITIES (PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION; LAWSUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO CUT OFF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY ALLOWED TO PROCEED)

,

SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF-CAMPUS ASSAULT.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff-student’s complaint against the school was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was attacked by several alleged gang members shortly after leaving school grounds. The court held there was no evidence plaintiff was released by the school into a dangerous situation which the school had a hand in creating:

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the assault occurred at a time when the plaintiff was not on school property and no longer in the defendant’s custody or under its control and was, thus, outside of the orbit of its authority … . The defendant also demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not released into a foreseeably hazardous setting that the defendant had a hand in creating … . Diaz v Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05485, 2nd Dept 7-13-16

NEGLIGENCE (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF-CAMPUS ASSAULT)/EDUCATIOON-SCHOOL LAW (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF-CAMPUS ASSAULT)/ASSAULT  (SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF-CAMPUS ASSAULT)

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