You are here: / Negligence
,

THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (PART 2 OF THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT OF 1986), WHICH LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS A VACCINE TO $1000, DOES NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY TREAT A VACCINATED PERSON FOR A VACCINE-RELATED CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (VICP or NCVIA) (42 USC § 300aa-10 et seq.), which limits the liability of a physician who administers a vaccine to $1000, applies only to those who actually administer the vaccine and not to those who subsequently treat the vaccinated person for medical problems that may be linked to the vaccine:

On April 14, 2006, defendant Gargi Gandhi, M.D. administered two vaccines to infant plaintiff Diksha Batish, then age 13. Plaintiff’s condition subsequently deteriorated. Two weeks after vaccination, plaintiff received care from defendant Drs. Imundo and Pascual. Several months later, in September 2006, plaintiff first sought treatment from Dr. Spiro. There is no dispute that only Dr. Gandhi administered the vaccines. * * *

Here, none of the moving defendants administered the vaccine. Neither … did they treat plaintiff for conditions allegedly exacerbated by subsequent vaccinations. They only provided post-vaccination care. Thus, the moving defendants cannot be considered vaccine administrators under the VICP. Since the moving defendants are not vaccine administrators, the VICP is inapplicable, and any toll authorized by the VICP is also inapplicable (see 42 USC § 300aa-16[c]). Batish v Gandhi 2022 NY Slip Op 07494, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (VICP or NCVIA) (42 USC § 300aa-10 et seq.) limits the liability of a physician who administers a vaccine to $1000.

 

,

​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the area where plaintiff slipped and fell, In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease, was responsible for the snow and ice removal:

… [T]he defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords who were not contractually obligated to remove snow and ice from the subject driveway, that they did not assume such a duty through a course of conduct, and that they did not violate any relevant statute or regulation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had a duty to remove snow or ice under statute or regulation, the terms of the lease, or a course of conduct … . Sweeney v Hoey, 2022 NY Slip Op 07471, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Here the out-of-possession landlords were not responsible for snow and ice removal in the are where plaintiff-tenant fell. In fact, plaintiff, by the terms of his lease was himself responsible for the snow and ice removal.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER ATTEMPTED A LEFT TURN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE POLICE REPORT, PHOTOS AND DASHBOARD VIDEO WERE INADMISSIBLE AND DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS FREE FROM FAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Wen Xu) in this intersection traffic accident case should not have been granted summary judgment. The defendant was apparently proceeding through the intersection when the driver of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger was attempting to make a left turn. The uncertified police report, photos and dashboard video submitted by the defendant were inadmissible and his affidavit did not demonstrate he was free from fault:

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, “[t]he driver of a vehicle intending to turn . . . left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close [to it] as to constitute an immediate hazard.” “The operator of a vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield” …  “However, a driver who has the right-of-way has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle that allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way” … .

Here, Wen Xu failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as he failed to establish that he was free from fault in the happening of the accident. In support of his motion, Wen Xu submitted, inter alia, an uncertified police accident report, photographs, a dashboard video camera recording, and his own affidavit. However, the uncertified police accident report constitutes inadmissible hearsay evidence …  The photographs and dashboard video camera recording are similarly inadmissible, as they were not properly authenticated … . Moreover, Wen Xu’s affidavit was insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact with regard to whether he was free from fault in the happening of the accident … . Wen Xu failed to establish that he “took reasonable care to avoid the collision” with the other vehicle … . Rosa v Gordils, 2022 NY Slip Op 07466, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Even the driver of the car with the right-of-way in an intersection accident can be liable if reasonable care to avoid the collision is not taken.

Practice Point: The police report, photos and dashboard video submitted by defendant in support of summary judgment were not in admissible form (the police report was uncertified and the photos and video were not authenticated) and defendant’s affidavit did not demonstrate he was free from fault. Therefore, even though defendant apparently had the right-of-way when the other driver attempted a left turn, defendant’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted.

 

,

THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY (A WATER BOTTLE UNDER THE ACCELERATOR) WAS OF THE DEFENDANT’S OWN MAKING; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT DRIVER’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department determined: (1) the emergency doctrine did not apply in this traffic accident case because the defendant driver caused the water bottle to fall from the cup holder where it lodged under the accelerator; (2) the cause of action alleging gross negligence and seeking punitive damages properly survived summary judgment; and (3) punitive damages are not available against defendant’s employer [Silvarole] pursuant to the respondeat superior theory:

… “[T]he emergency doctrine is only applicable when a party is confronted by [a] sudden, unforeseeable occurrence not of their own making” … . The “emergency doctrine has no application where . . . the party seeking to invoke it has created or contributed to the emergency” … .  … [T]he record … establishes that Davis [defendant driver] was the only person in the vehicle, and defendants did not submit evidence that any other person was responsible for the alleged emergency … . Thus, we conclude that defendants failed to demonstrate that the emergency encountered was not of Davis’s own making, “i.e., that [Davis] did not create or contribute to it” … . * * *

Punitive damages may be awarded “based on intentional actions or actions which, while not intentional, amount to gross negligence, recklessness, or wantonness . . . or conscious disregard of the rights of others or for conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard” … . * * * Defendants … failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that Davis’s conduct, specifically his decision to look for and retrieve the obstacle while the tractor-trailer was in motion—despite the fact that his brakes were in working order—did not “amount to gross negligence, recklessness, or wantonness . . . or conscious disregard of the rights of others” … . …

Plaintiff seeks to hold Silvarole liable for punitive damages under a theory of vicarious liability. However, punitive damages are unavailable under such a theory absent limited circumstances not present here … . Miller v Silvarole Trucking Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07348, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the emergency doctrine does not apply where the emergency is of the defendant’s own making, here a water bottle under the accelerator.

Practice Point: The gross negligence cause of action and demand for punitive damages in this traffic accident case survived summary judgment.

Practice Point: Punitive damages are not available against the driver’s employer under a vicarious liability theory.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS PRESCRIBED ATIVAN, WHICH CAUSES DROWSINESS, IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, WAS DISCHARGED WHILE UNDER ITS INFLUENCE AND WAS INVOLVED IN A CAR ACCIDENT; THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE EFFECTS OF ATIVAN BOTH SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. Plaintiff was treated at the emergency department of defendant hospital and prescribed Ativan, a drug which causes drowsiness. Plaintiff was released while under the influence of the drug and had a car accident. Plaintiff alleged he was negligently discharged and was not informed of the possible effects of Ativan:

… [T]he evidence … raised issues of fact whether Iannolo [the treating physician] deviated from the standard of care by discharging plaintiff at a time when the concentration of Ativan in his system was at or near its peak and while plaintiff was experiencing the effects of the medication, including drowsiness. Those submissions also raised issues of fact whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . Regarding the hospital’s motion, the evidence that the hospital submitted raised issues of fact whether … a nurse employed by the hospital deviated from the standard of care and committed an act of negligence independent of Iannolo … , by failing to explain the discharge instructions to plaintiff or advise him of the possible effects of Ativan, and whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … .

… [T]he hospital … contends that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to the negligence cause of action against it. We agree … . “A complaint sounds in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence where, as here, the challenged conduct [by a nurse] ‘constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician’ to a particular patient” … . Johnson v Auburn Community Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07332, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Discharging a patient from the hospital emergency room while under the influence of Ativan, which causes drowsiness, may be the basis of a medical malpractice action stemming from a subsequent car accident. The failure to explain the effects of Ativan was deemed a separate cause of action sounding in medical malpractice (not ordinary negligence).

 

, ,

THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the out-of-possession landlord was required under the terms of the lease to repair structural defects in the roof and walls and there was a question of fact whether such defects caused a crack in the floor. The cracked floor was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition which cause a load of tines in a payloader to fall and injure plaintiff:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when tires that were being moved by a forklift struck him when they fell from the forklift after it drove over a crack in the concrete floor. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the complaint asserted a negligence cause of action against Estes Express Lines (defendant), which owned the premises on which plaintiff was injured, alleging that defendant negligently permitted a dangerous condition to exist on the premises that contributed to his injury, i.e., the crack in the concrete floor. * * *

… [P]laintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether defendant was liable based on its contractual obligation to maintain the structural integrity of the roof and walls. … [T]he court …. properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. … [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit from one of plaintiff’s former colleagues and from a code enforcement officer, who each averred that the damage to the floor may have been caused by water damage or water infiltration due to poor maintenance of the roof and walls. Plaintiff’s former colleague further averred that defendant had conducted annual inspections of the property and had previously repaired damage to the floor of the premises. Thus, there is a question of fact concerning defendant’s liability for defects in the condition of the floor … . Weaver v Deronde Tire Supply, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07328, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Whether an out-of-possession landlord is liable for injury caused by dangerous conditions on the property can be determined by the terms of the lease. Here the lease required the landlord to repair structural defects in the roof and walls. Plaintiff alleged water entered the premises through those structural defects causing a crack in the floor which contributed to his injury. Plaintiff’s allegations survived summary judgment.

 

, , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this dog-bite case were not entitled to summary judgment, the action was not frivolous, and defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. In addition, the summary judgment motion, made before discovery, was deemed premature. The court found there were questions of fact whether defendants, including the landlord (held to an ordinary negligence standard) were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The relationships among the parties and the unsuccessful arguments made by defendants in support of summary judgment are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… “[A]n owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities” … . “Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … .

… “[A] landlord who, with knowledge that a prospective tenant has a vicious dog which will be kept on the premises, nonetheless leases the premises to such tenant without taking reasonable measures, by pertinent provisions in the lease or otherwise, to protect persons who might be on the premises from being attacked by the dog may be held liable [under a negligence standard] to a person who while thereafter on the premises is bitten by the dog” … . When, “during the term of the leasehold[,] a landlord becomes aware of the fact that [the] tenant is harboring an animal with vicious propensities, [the landlord] owes a duty to protect third persons from injury . . . if [the landlord] ‘had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal’ ” … . Michael P. v Dombroski, 2022 NY Slip Op 07318, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: A landlord who is aware of a dog’s vicious propensities can be held liable in a dog-bite case under a standard negligence theory.

 

, ,

THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in this dog-bite case by adding a negligence cause of action was properly denied. The Court of Appeals recently held that a veterinarian could be liable for a dog-bite under a negligence theory where a dog in the veterinarian’s waiting room bit a customer. Here the dog was owned by an animal society and had been placed with defendant O’Rourke until the society could find someone to adopt him:

Although O’Rourke does not own the dog that bit plaintiff, “[a]n owner’s strict liability for damages arising from the vicious propensities and vicious acts of a dog ‘extends to a person who harbors the animal although not its owner’ ” … . * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, … [plaintiff could assert] a negligence cause of action against O’Rourke, … plaintiff would still have to establish in support of her negligence cause of action that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s alleged “vicious propensities” … . … “[T]he vicious propensity notice rule has been applied to animal owners who are held to a strict liability standard, as well as to certain non-pet owners—such as landlords who rent to pet owners—under a negligence standard … .

… [P]laintiff’s proposed negligence cause of action against O’Rourke does not allege that O’Rourke had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities; instead, it alleges that O’Rourke was negligent because she did not “investigate the subject dog accepted from the foster care program . . . before introducing it to her property, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the property which she had a nondelegable duty to keep reasonably safe.” The proposed complaint therefore fails to state a viable negligence cause of action against O’Rourke. Cicero v O’Rourke, 2022 NY Slip Op 07316, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals recently held a veterinarian could be liable under a standard negligence theory for a dog-bite which occurs in the veterinarian’s waiting room because of the specialized knowledge of animal behavior attributed to a veterinarian. The negligence standard does not apply to a person who is harboring a dog for an animal society until someone adopts the dog. In that case, the strict liability (requiring knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities) standard still applies.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant in this pedestrian-vehicle-accident case was not required to disclose privileged medical (mental health) information which was provided to the sentencing court in the related criminal case as a “mitigation report:”

“CPLR 3121 (a) authorizes discovery of a party’s mental or physical condition when that party’s condition has been placed in controversy” … . Nevertheless, even where a defendant’s mental or physical condition is in controversy, discovery will be precluded if the information falls within the physician-patient privilege and the defendant has not waived that privilege … . Where the physician-patient privilege has not been waived, the party asserting the privilege may “avoid revealing the substance of confidential communications made to [his or] her physician, but may not refuse to testify as to relevant medical incidents or facts concerning [himself or] herself” … .

We agree with defendant that he did not waive the physician-patient privilege by disclosing his mental health information in the sentencing phase of the related criminal proceeding. Here, defendant submitted the mitigation report in the criminal proceeding for the court’s consideration in the determination of an appropriate sentence. Thus, this is not a case where a criminal defendant waived any privilege applicable to that defendant’s mental health records by raising a justification or other affirmative defense to be litigated in the criminal proceeding … . Instead, the mitigation report was prepared for and “submitted directly to the court[] in connection with the question of sentence” and, as a result, the mitigation report is “confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court” (CPL 390.50 [1] …). Johnson v Amadorzabala,, 2022 NY Slip Op 07355, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The defendant in this personal injury case did not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting mental health records to the sentencing court in the related criminal case. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the mitigation report was for the judge’s eyes only and was confidential.

 

, , , ,

BOTH PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER AND THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S BUS WERE DEEMED COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN A RELATED PROCEEDING; THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the dismissal of plaintiff bus-driver’s causes of action against the estate of driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s county bus, and against Jewish Family Services (JFS) for whom the decedent-driver was volunteering at the time of the accident. JFS and the county collaborated on a program to drive senior citizens to medical appointments. Plaintiff sued JFS under a respondeat superior theory. Pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation benefits were plaintiff’s exclusive remedy because both she and the driver of the car had been deemed county employees in a related action:

A review of the papers supporting [the county’s] cross motion [in the related proceeding] establishes, however, that [the county] focused upon the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Plaintiff thereafter had a full and fair opportunity to respond to that issue, which was discussed at length in the 2019 order. Indeed, Supreme Court … expressly held that the provisions of that statute applied because “both [plaintiff] and Hyde were within the same employ and acting within the scope of employment at the time the alleged injuries occurred, therefore rendering them co-employees which results in workers’ compensation being the exclusive remedy.” Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde were coemployees was “actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided” against plaintiff … .

Plaintiff’s claim against JFS is premised upon the theory that JFS exercised sufficient control over Hyde to render it vicariously liable for her negligence. The issue of whether plaintiff and Hyde are coemployees has been resolved against plaintiff with preclusive effect, however, and plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the negligence of Hyde is therefore workers’ compensation benefits. As noted above, as Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) “deprive[s] the injured employee of a right to maintain an action against a negligent coemployee, [it also] bars a derivative action which necessarily is dependent upon the same claim of negligence for which the exclusive remedy has been provided” … . Thus, as “plaintiff[] did not assert any allegation that [JFS] had committed an act constituting affirmative negligence,” the cross motion of JFS for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it should have been granted … . Bryant v Gulnick, 2022 NY Slip Op 07284, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In a related proceeding it was determined that both plaintiff bus driver and the driver of the car which struck plaintiff’s bus were county employees. Therefore, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

 

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