You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

Failure to File Retainer Agreement In Medical Malpractice Action Remedied Nunc Pro Tunc

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly granted leave to file a retainer agreement in a medical malpractice action, nunc pro tunc.  The attorney (Siegel) was the second attorney retained in the matter (to handle the trial).  After the case settled, the second attorney sued the first (Glassman) over the amount of the fee.  The second attorney (Siegel) , however, had not filed a retainer agreement and made a motion to file late:

Every attorney practicing law in the Second Judicial Department who is retained with respect to, inter alia, a medical malpractice action must file a retainer statement with the OCA within 30 days after being retained … . Additionally, every “attorney retained by another attorney, on a contingent fee basis, as trial or appeal counsel or to assist in the preparation, investigation, adjustment or settlement of any such action, claim or proceeding shall, within 15 days from the date of such retainer, sign personally and file with the [OCA] a written statement of such retainer” (22 NYCRR 691.20[a][3]). Filing a retainer statement with the OCA is a condition precedent to the receipt of a fee for any case to which 22 NYCRR 691.20 applies … . Attorneys failing to correctly file a retainer statement with the OCA pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.20 are precluded from asserting breach of contract causes of action for outstanding fees, and are limited to suit in quantum meruit … . However, a late filing of a retainer statement is sufficient to preserve an attorney’s right to recover fees where that attorney first obtains leave of court to file the statement nunc pro tunc … .

In exercising its discretion to extend the time to file the subject retainer statement pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the person opposing the motion … . Here, the reason for the delay, in effect, Siegel’s law office failure, was an isolated, inadvertent mistake … and there is no prejudice to Glassman… . Siracusa v Fitterman, 2013 NY slip Op 07025, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether Rider Assumed Risk of Being Kicked by Horse—Allegations Defendant Heightened Risk

The Third Department there was a question of fact whether plaintiff assumed the risk of being kicked by defendant’s horse.  Plaintiff alleged the risk was heightened by defendant’s actions:

While it has been recognized that participants in the sporting activity of horseback riding assume commonly appreciated risks inherent in the activity, such as being kicked …, “[p]articipants will not be deemed to have assumed unreasonably increased risks” … .  “‘[A]n assessment of whether a participant assumed a risk depends on the openness and obviousness of the risks, the participant’s skill and experience, as well as his or her conduct under the circumstances and the nature of the defendant’s conduct'” … .

Here, plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact by offering evidence that defendant’s attendant assisted plaintiff in mounting her assigned horse, and the attendant then positioned the head of her horse within six inches of the tail of the horse in the line in front of her.  The attendant then was called away and, in leaving, he ducked under the head of plaintiff’s horse, causing it to nudge the horse in front of it.  The horse in front then kicked back, striking plaintiff in the leg and injuring her. Defendant’s co-owner acknowledged that the positioning of horses is an important safety concern and that horses should be spaced approximately one horse length apart.  Thus, while being kicked by a horse is an obvious risk of horseback riding, and plaintiff, although an inexperienced rider, was aware of the risk, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant’s alleged actions in positioning the horses and then ducking under the head of plaintiff’s horse heightened the risk of injury to an inexperienced rider… . Valencia … v Diamond F Livestock, Inc…, 516434, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

, ,

Malpractice Action for Depression-Treatment Prior to Suicide Is Actionable

The Second Department determined a cause of action for malpractice in treating plaintiff’s decedent for depression prior to her committing suicide should not have been dismissed:

Here, the complaint sought damages for conscious pain and suffering arising from Family Services’ alleged negligence in treating the decedent’s depression during the period between October 19, 2005, and the time of her death about 10 days later. That cause of action states a cognizable legal theory sounding in professional malpractice … .

Further, EPTL 11-3.2(b), referred to as the “survival statute” …, provides that “[n]o cause of action for injury to person . . . is lost because of the death of the person in whose favor the cause of action existed.” A cause of action based on personal injuries which survives the death of the decedent is distinct from a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death … . Accordingly, the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering predicated on alleged acts of professional malpractice committed between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005, survived the decedent’s death, and damages for such pain and suffering may be recoverable by her estate … .  Stolarski v Family Servs of Westchester Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06850, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

,

Abutting Landowner Not Responsible for Condition of Sidewalk Tree Well; Open and Obvious Condition Relates Only to Comparative Negligence

In affirming the denial of the summary judgment motion brought by the defendant abutting landowner in a sidewalk slip and fall case, the Second Department noted that an abutting landowner is not responsible for defects in a tree well, and the allegation that a condition is open and obvious only raises a question of fact about plaintiff’s possible contributory negligence. Vigil v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06853, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

 

,

Question of Fact about Implied Physician-Patient Relationship In Malpractice Action

In a medical malpractice action, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether an implied physician-patient relationship existed:

Liability for medical malpractice may not be imposed in the absence of a physician-patient relationship … . A physician-patient relationship is created when professional services are rendered and accepted for purposes of medical or surgical treatment … . An implied physician-patient relationship can arise when a physician gives advice to a patient, even if the advice is communicated through another health care professional … . Whether a physician’s proffer of advice furnishes a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that an implied physician-patient relationship has arisen is ordinarily a question of fact for a jury … .  Thomas v Hermoso, 2013 NY Slip Op 06852, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

Standard of Care Required of Train Operator

n affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, the Second Department explained the standard of care applicable to a train operator.  Plaintiff’s decedent was struck by the train:

The complaint in this case alleged that the defendants acted negligently and thereby caused the death of the plaintiff’s decedent, who was struck by a train owned and operated by the defendants. “[A] train operator may be found negligent if he or she sees a person on the tracks from such a distance and under such other circumstances as to permit him [or her], in the exercise of reasonable care, to stop before striking the person” … . In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted evidence, including the deposition testimony of the operator of the train involved in the subject accident, that he was operating the train at a lawful speed and was approximately one car length away when he first observed the decedent, who was intoxicated, trespassing on the tracks. The train operator immediately applied the emergency brakes and sounded the horn, but at that point, it was impossible to avoid the collision. The evidence submitted by the defendants established, prima facie, that they were not negligent in the happening of the accident as a matter of law … .  Neenan v Quinton, 2013 NY Slip Op 06843, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

,

Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Did Not Preclude Lawsuit—Question of Fact Re: Applicability of Emergency Doctrine

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the defendant driver who struck plaintiff when the defendant turned toward the shoulder to avoid an on-coming car, the Third Department noted that plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy did not preclude the suit and there were questions of fact about the applicability of the emergency doctrine:

Initially, we reject defendants’ assertion that plaintiff lacks the capacity to sue by virtue of his failure to disclose his personal injury claim in his chapter 13 bankruptcy schedule of assets.  “While [c]hapter 7 and [c]hapter 11 debtors lose standing to maintain civil suits – which must be brought and/or maintained by their bankruptcy trustees – it is clear that [c]hapter 13 debtors like plaintiff are not subject to this restriction” … .   Accordingly, Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s omission in this regard was not fatal. …

“Under the emergency doctrine, a driver who confronts a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration may be relieved of liability if the actions taken in response are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context” … .  The reasonableness of the driver’s conduct, as well as whether he or she could have done something to avoid the accident, typically present questions of fact for a jury to resolve … .  Thus, in order to be granted summary judgment in this regard, “a driver must establish as a matter of law that he or she did not contribute to the creation of the emergency situation, and that his or her reaction was reasonable under the circumstances such that he or she could not have done anything to avoid the collision” …Defendants failed to meet that burden here.  Collins v Suraci, 516138, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Re: Shard of Wood Ingested by Plaintiff Allowed Case to Survive Summary Judgment

In reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur sufficiently raised a question of fact about whether a shard of wood, which was swallowed by plaintiff, was negligently present in food prepared by defendant (Cipriani):

Res ipsa loquitur is neither a theory of liability nor a presumption of liability, but instead is simply a permitted inference – that the trier of fact may accept or reject – reflecting a “common-sense application of the probative value of circumstantial evidence” … .  Criteria for res ipsa loquitur to apply are that “(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; [and] (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … .  The parties dispute the exclusive control element and, to establish that element, plaintiffs were “not obligated to eliminate every alternative explanation for the event, but only to demonstrate that the likelihood of causes other than the defendant[s’] negligence is so reduced that the greater probability lies at defendant[s’] door, rendering it more likely than not that the injury was caused by defendant[s’] negligence” … .

Here, the event occurred at a banquet hall operated by Cipriani.  Cipriani prepared and provided all of the food. Attendees were not permitted to bring food onto the premises. Individuals undisputedly under Cipriani’s control (pursuant to a contractual arrangement) acted as captains, servers and bartenders.  Cipriani thus exclusively prepared, provided and served the food.  Although the shard possibly could have been present when the ingredients for food were purchased from suppliers, it was not so small as to have been likely concealed and thus not visible upon careful preparation (cf. Restatement [Second] of Torts § 328D, Comment e, Illustration 2).  … There is sufficient proof under these circumstances to find ample control by defendants for purposes of res ipsa loquitur. Brumberg v Cipriani USA Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06759, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

, ,

Ad on Internet, Together With Communications With Florida Medical Group, Did Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Group in a Malpractice Action Based On Surgery Done in Florida

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, over two dissenters, the Second Department determined that an ad on the Internet by a Florida medical group (LSI) and the group’s website, together with communications between the New York plaintiff and the Florida group, were insufficient to provide New York with long-arm jurisdiction over a medical malpractice case brought by the plaintiff who had undergone surgery in Florida:

…[I]t is not the number of contacts which is determinative of whether a defendant purposely availed itself of the benefits and privileges of conducting business in New York. Each jurisdictional inquiry pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) will turn upon the examination of the particular facts of the case, “[a]nd although determining what facts constitute purposeful availment’ is an objective inquiry, it always requires a court to closely examine the defendant’s contacts for their quality” .. . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … . “Whether a non-domiciliary has engaged in sufficient purposeful activity to confer jurisdiction in New York requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances” … .

In the case at bar, the “totality of circumstances” does not provide the plaintiff with a basis for imposing long-arm jurisdiction over the defendants. Initially, we note that personal jurisdiction cannot be based upon LSI’s website, since, as far as the record reveals, this website was informational only and, thus, “passive” in nature. There is no indication that the website permitted a user thereof to purchase any goods or services from LSI, that it contained any online form application process, or that it allowed any interaction through the site … . “When a website is passive . . . plaintiffs may have to prove something more’ to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction–that is, plaintiffs must show that defendant purposefully (albeit electronically) directed his activity in an substantial way to the forum state'” … .

This Court has also recently held that such a passive website, without more, cannot be used as the basis for the assertion of long-arm personal jurisdiction. Paterno v Laser Spine Inst, 2013 NY Slip Op 06669, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

,

Police Officer Injured by Debris in City’s Vacant Lot Stated a Cause of Action Under General Municipal law

In finding a police officer had stated a cause of action against the City pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-e based on an injury caused by debris in an empty lot owned by the City, the Second Department determined that a violation of the NYC Health Code section requiring lots be kept free of debris could be the basis of the action:

To support a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, a plaintiff law enforcement officer, inter alia, must identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply … . Liability pursuant General Municipal Law § 205-e will exist where there is negligent noncompliance with “any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments or of any and all their departments, divisions and bureaus” (General Municipal Law § 205-e), provided that the statute, ordinance, rule, order or requirement cited is found in a “well-developed bod[y] of law and regulation” that “impose[s] clear duties” … . Section 205-e must be applied ” expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible” … .

New York City Health Code § 153.19 provides that “[t]he owner, agent, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person who manages or controls a building or lot shall be jointly and severally responsible for keeping . . . the premises free from obstructions and nuisances and for keeping . . . the . . . lot clean and free from garbage, refuse, rubbish, litter, other offensive matter or accumulation of water.” Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, this provision constitutes a well-developed body of law… . Mulham v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 06666, Second Dept 10-16-13

 

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