You are here: / Negligence
,

AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined an entry in the plaintiff’s medical records indicating she fell down a few stairs was inadmissible. Plaintiff alleged she fell through a broken step. The entry in the hospital record was not germane to diagnosis or treatment and the source of the entry could not be ascertained:

… Supreme Court should have precluded the admission into evidence of an entry in a medical record from … the Brookdale medical record … that indicated that the plaintiff sustained a “mechanical fall down ‘a few’ stairs.” An entry in a medical record that is not germane to diagnosis or treatment but is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial is admissible as an admission by that party only when there is evidence connecting the party to the entry … .. “[W]here the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … .

Here, the Brookdale medical record was not germane to the plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment, and thus was not admissible on that basis … .. Moreover, there was no showing that the plaintiff was the source of the information in that record and so it was not admissible as an admission by the plaintiff … . Fraser v 147 Rockaway Pkw, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01772, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: An entry in a hospital record which is not germane to treatment or diagnosis is not admissible. An entry in a hospital record which is inconsistent with a plaintiff’s position at trial is admissible as an “admission” only if it is clear plaintiff was the source of the entry. If, as it was here, the source of the entry is unknown, it is inadmissible.

 

,

IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE MATTER, PLAINTIFF INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NYCRR SUCH THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer did not demonstrate it was entitled to summary judgment based upon the insured’s failure to appear for an independent medical examination (IME):

[Plaintiff insurer’s] its motion papers did not demonstrate that it sustained its burden of showing that it complied with New York State no-fault regulations (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5[b], [d]) governing the timeframes for scheduling IMEs … .. Specifically, plaintiff did not establish that it timely requested the IMEs under the applicable no-fault regulations, since plaintiff’s motion papers did not establish the dates of the verification forms that it received from the medical provider defendants; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether plaintiff sent the appropriate notices within 15 business days or 30 calendar days of receiving the forms, as required under (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(b) and (d) …  American Tr. Ins. Co. v Alcantara, 2022 NY Slip Op 01871, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An insurer must show compliance with the regulatory timeframes for scheduling an independent medical examination (IME) before it will be entitled to summary judgment based on an insured’s failure to appear at an IME.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to compel plaintiff to supplement his interrogatories in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the escalator he was working on started up without warning severely injured his leg. The fact that plaintiff can not identify the cause of the unexpected start-up did not require supplementing his interrogatories as he can so state “under oath:”

“It is well settled that a products liability cause of action may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and thus, a plaintiff need not identify a specific product defect” … . In the absence of evidence identifying a specific defect “a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to [the] defendants” … . If a “plaintiff is unable to prove both elements, ‘a jury may not infer that the harm was caused by a defective product unless [the] plaintiff offers competent evidence identifying a specific flaw'” …

In his interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified several alleged design defects, including the design of the pit, that contributed to his injury. However, he did not identify a cause for the unexpected start up of the escalator. … Presently, plaintiff asserts that he cannot pinpoint the defective component that allowed the escalator’s machinery to begin moving without warning. In an instance where plaintiff “presently lacks the knowledge” to specifically identify the nature of the defect, plaintiff can testify to that “under oath” … . … [I]f he acquires the pertinent information he would be under an obligation to promptly supplement his answers to the interrogatories at issue … . Berkovich v Judlau Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01733, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Products liability actions can be proven by circumstantial evidence. If a plaintiff does not know the cause of a product malfunction (here, an escalator which allegedly started running unexpectedly) at the discovery stage, the plaintiff can testify to that fact under oath.

 

, ,

IN THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER’S SPECIFIC CONDUCT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE ORDINARY RULES OF THE ROAD PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1104, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE ORDINARY RULES OF NEGLIGENCE; THE MUNICIPALITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant municipality did not demonstrate that the reckless disregard standard applied or that the police officer was not negligent in this police-car traffic accident case:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)” … . Even where there is no dispute that the driver was involved in an emergency operation of an authorized vehicle, where the injury-causing conduct did not fall within any of the categories of privileged conduct set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), the plaintiff’s claim is governed by principles of ordinary negligence … .

Here, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [officer] Giandurco engaged in specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) and whether the reckless disregard standard of care was therefore applicable … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that under principles of ordinary negligence, Giandurco was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Cooney v Port Chester Police Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 01440, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Even if a police car is engaged in an emergency operation at the time of a traffic accident, the police officer’s conduct is not automatically judged under the reckless disregard standard for emergency vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104. The officer’s specific conduct must fall within one of the the categories of privileged conduct in the statute. Otherwise the ordinary rules of negligence apply. At the summary-judgment stage, a municipality must demonstrate either that the specific conduct was exempt from the ordinary rules of negligence, or that the specific conduct was not culpable under the ordinary rules of negligent. Here the municipality did not demonstrate either one.

 

, ,

PLANTIFF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER IN 2014 IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF LAVERN’S LAW (CPLR 214-A) IN 2018, WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER BY VIRTUE OF ITS RETROACTIVE-APPLICATION AND REVIVAL PROVISIONS, THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s med mal action alleging failure to diagnose lung cancer based upon a CT scan in 2014 was time barred pursuant to the retroactive-application and revival limitations in CPRL 214-a, enacted on January 31, 2018 (called Lavern’s Law):

[Lavern’s Law] “appl[ies] to acts, omissions, or failures occurring within 2 years and 6 months prior to the effective date of this act, and not before” … . Thus, by its terms, the discovery toll in Lavern’s Law’s applies retroactively to causes of action that were not time-barred as of Lavern’s Law’s effective date, i.e., causes of action accruing on or after July 31, 2015. Plaintiff’s causes of action, which accrued on May 16, 2014, predate the earliest date to which Lavern’s Law’s retroactive discovery toll applies.

Lavern’s Law also provides for the revival of certain time-barred medical malpractice causes of action. Where a claim based on the negligent failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor occurred and, “within ten months prior to the effective date of the act . . . became time-barred under any applicable limitations period then in effect, such action or claim may be commenced within six months of the effective date of the act . . . .” … . Therefore, a failure to diagnose cancer or malignant tumor cause of action that became time-barred between March 31, 2017 and January 31, 2018 may be revived if it is commenced no later than July 31, 2018 … . Because plaintiff’s claims became time-barred on November 16, 2016, the limited revival provision of the new law (for certain claims that became time-barred after March 31, 2017) does not avail her … .Ford v Lee, 2022 NY Slip Op 01414, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: Lavern’s Law (CPLR 214-a, enacted in 2018) extended the statute of limitations for failure to diagnose cancer by virtue of its retroactive-application and revival provisions, neither of which applied to plaintiff here who alleged failure to diagnose in 2014.

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO AMEND THEIR ANSWERS IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S CULPABLE CONDUCT AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (RE: HER WEIGHT AND SMOKING) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DELAY IN MAKING THE MOTION CAUSED NO PREJUDICE; GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY NEED NOT BE SHOWN; FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED PLEADINGS WITH THE MOTION PAPERS AND DEFECTS IN VERIFICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the defendants in this medical malpractice actions should have been allowed to amend their answers to allege culpable conduct and comparative negligence on the part of plaintiff, citing her weight and smoking habit: (2) the defendants failure to attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion papers was a technical defect which should have been overlooked; (3) the defendants did not need to submit a certificate of merit for the proposed amendments; and (4), the defects in the defendants’ verifications should have been overlooked:

“While [defendants were] or should have been aware of the facts and theories asserted in the amended [answers] long before amendment was actually sought, delay alone is not a sufficient ground for denying leave to amend” … . Under the circumstances in this case, there was no unreasonable delay by defendants in seeking leave to amend, as plaintiff has not filed her note of issue nor has the case has been certified as trial-ready … . Further, because there was no extended delay by defendants in moving to amend, they did not need to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay … .

… “[O]n a motion for leave to amend, [the movant] need not establish the merit of its proposed new allegations, but simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit”  … Contrary also to plaintiff’s argument, Golson v Addei [216 AD2d 268] does not stand for the proposition that a comparative negligence defense in a medical malpractice case based on a plaintiff’s smoking history is per se meritless … . Johnson v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01418, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: In a med mal case, plaintiff’s weight and smoking habit maybe grounds for affirmative defenses.

Practice Point: There was no need to submit a certificate of merit with the motion to amend the answers.

Practice Point: Where there has been no prejudice to the plaintiff, the unexcused delay in seeking amendment of the answers here was not a sufficient ground for denying the amendment.

Practice Point: Failure to include the proposed amended answers with the motion for leave to amend, and defects in defendants’ verifications, were technical defects which should have been overlooked.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS-PARENTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LOSS OF THEIR INJURED DAUGHTER’S SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PARENTS DEMONSTRATED ONLY THAT THEIR DAUGHTER PERFORMED SERVICES IN HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE COMPANIES OWNED BY THE PARENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the parents’ cause of action for loss of their injured daughter’s services should have been granted:

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiffs Arlene and Herbert Klaar, the parents of the injured plaintiff, Deborah Klaar, are not entitled to recover damages for loss of their daughter’s services since they showed only that their claim rests entirely on the services Deborah performed in her employment at the two companies they own … .

… [P]laintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact. They cited deposition testimony demonstrating that Deborah served as a secretary, office manager, and assistant controller at her parents’ companies, that she was expected to take over the businesses and provide her parents with a monthly payment, and that she had significant difficulty fulfilling all of her many duties following the accident. They did not submit evidence that Deborah regularly performed services for them as their daughter, such as doing chores or running errands for the household, nor that they sustained any pecuniary loss as a result of her failure to do so … .Klaar v Fedex Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01393, First Dept 3-3-22

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A RETAINER AGREEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANTS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed on the ground plaintiff did not demonstrate the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiff did not have to produce a retainer agreement:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in granting dismissal of the legal malpractice cause of action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship does not depend on the existence of a formal retainer agreement … , and the plaintiff had no obligation to demonstrate evidentiary facts to support the allegations contained in the complaint … . Furthermore, the complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiff and the … defendants … , as well as the other elements of legal malpractice, including damages, to support a legal malpractice cause of action … . Ripa v Petrosyants, 2022 NY Slip Op 01336, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHILE ATTENDING A BEACH-FRONT PARTY, SUFFERED SEVERE INJURY WHEN HE DOVE OFF A BULKHEAD INTO SHALLOW WATER; HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR FAILURE TO WARN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE PERSON WHO RENTED THE AREA FOR THE PARTY WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against the owner of beach-front property where a party was being held should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff dove off a bulkhead into shallow water and suffered severe injury. Plaintiff alleged a negligent failure to warn against diving. Apparently the water was murky and the bulkhead extended 40 feet into a bay along a boat channel. In addition, the Second Department determined that the person who rented the area for the party (Hanson) did not agree, in the rental agreement, to indemnify the property owner for the owner’s alleged negligence:

The plaintiff testified that he believed the waters to be deep in the area in which he dove because the bulkhead was adjacent to a boating channel, it extended approximately 40 feet into the bay from the beach, and he had seen people swimming earlier in the day. … [I]t cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff knew or should have known that he was diving into shallow waters, and thus, that his conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident or an unforeseeable superseding event sufficient to absolve [the owner] of liability … . Moreover, [the owner] did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was the sole proximate cause, or a superseding cause, of the accident … . …

“When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . “The promise should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances” … . Particularly with agreements to indemnify, “[a]lthough the words might ‘seem to admit of a larger sense, . . . they should be restrained to the particular occasion and to the particular object which the parties had in view'” … .

Here, the indemnification provision on which [the owner] relies is contained in the agreement Hanson signed to rent the Community Center for a party. Hanson demonstrated … that a promise on his part to indemnify PPI for its alleged negligence in relation to its ownership and maintenance of the beach area and bulkhead cannot be “clearly implied from the language and purpose of [that] entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances” … . Reilly v Patchogue Props., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01334, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

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