You are here: / Negligence
, ,

THE DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING AND DEATH UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES ARE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AVAILABLE FOR WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER THE ESTATES, POWERS AND TRUSTS LAW (EPTL) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, explained the differences between damages available for the private right of action against residential health care facilities under the Public Health Law, and the damages available for wrongful death under the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL). (1) Public Health Law 2801-d encompasses compensatory and punitive damages for death; (2) the Public Health Law “death” damages are not limited to the pecuniary loss suffered by surviving family members as they are under the EPTL; and (3) damages under the Public Health Law are not the same as pain and suffering under the EPTL and do not require proof the decedent experienced cognitive awareness of the injury:

The express language of Public Health Law § 2801-d (1) provides that a nursing home facility is liable to a “patient” for “injuries suffered as a result of” the deprivation of a right or benefit conferred by any contract, statute or regulation, expressly defining “injury” to include “death of a patient.” …

… [T]he wrongful death and survivorship statutes do not permit damages to a person for his or her own death. Hence, imposing here [theese] limits … would render meaningless a nursing home’s potential statutory liability to a patient for his or her death. …

Although, at common law, damages for loss of enjoyment of life cannot be awarded to a person whose injuries preclude awareness of the loss as such damages serve no compensatory purpose … , the Legislature chose to allow such damages through the [Public Health Law] statute at issue here to serve a purpose beyond simply compensating the victim, i.e., to deter violations of patient rights. “It is precisely because of the inadequacy of the existing common-law causes of action to redress the abuse of patients in nursing homes that Public Health Law § 2801-d was enacted … . Hauser v Fort Hudson Nursing Ctr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07325, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of a recurring condition, i.e., windows in need repair in defendant’s (Luna’s) building. Plaintiff alleged a cracked window shattered, injuring her hand:

Luna’s submissions, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of its building superintendent, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of a recurrent dangerous condition. The superintendent testified that in the period of approximately two years preceding the accident, Luna was made aware of 33 instances in which a window in the building needed to be repaired … . Moreover, the superintendent testified that it was “normal” for windows in the building to break. While “[a] general awareness of a recurring problem is insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident” …, the superintendent’s testimony regarding the frequency of specific complaints of window damage in the building raised triable issues of fact as to whether Luna had an obligation to inspect the windows … . Butnik v Luna Park Hous. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 07314, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the jury instruction for the “open run” defense was proper. Plaintiff was lying near train tracks with one leg over the rails when he was struck by the defendant’s train at night. The “open run” defense allows the train operator to proceed normally when someone is seen ahead on the tracks and assume he or she will get out of the way. The question raised by this case is whether the “open run” defense applies only in the daylight hours. The Second Department held the trial judge properly concluded the defense applied at night because the sound of the train would be heard by, and the light from the train would be seen to, anyone on the tracks. Although the jury was instructed on the “open run” defense, the uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated the train personnel sounded the horn and initiated an emergency stop when plaintiff was first spotted on the tracks. Any error in the jury instruction, therefore, would have been harmless:

… [W]e hold that the open run defense is not exclusively limited to cases involving daytime train accidents, but rather may be applicable under any circumstances in which an oncoming train would be readily observable to a person on or near the tracks making reasonable use of his or her senses. Kunnemeyer v Long Is. R.R., 2021 NY Slip Op 07281, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, , , , ,

WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined the party-statement exception to the privilege afforded statements made in a peer-review “quality assurance” committee’s review of the medical treatment afforded a patient applied to all of the statements made by speakers who were not identified in the meeting minutes. The defendants, who were asserting the privilege, were unable to demonstrate the statements attributed in the minutes to the “committee” were not made by a party and therefore not subject to the party-statement exception to the privilege. In other words, the statements made at the meeting by unidentified speakers were discoverable by the plaintiff in this medical malpractice action:

Requiring a defendant who is asserting the quality-assurance privilege to identify who made the statements at a medical or quality assurance review meeting, so as to demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, will further the goals of the quality-assurance privilege … . By identifying the maker of the statements at the medical or quality-assurance review meetings, only those statements that are made by a party will be subject to disclosure, and only those statements entitled to protection from disclosure will be protected. … [I]n order to avail itself of the privilege afforded by Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2), the party asserting the privilege must demonstrate that no party statements subject to disclosure are being withheld, and thus must identify who said what at the meeting. …

… [T]he party-statement exception applied to those statements in the peer-review committee meeting minutes that were attributed to the committee, and for which there was no indication as to who specifically made the statements, as they were not entitled to the quality-assurance privilege set forth in Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m(2). Siegel v Snyder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07264, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYC Department of Education (DOE) was immune from suit by a student who alleged injury in an afterschool program run two teachers (Polanish and Gallagher) called “Mind, Body & Sport” (MBS). The school principal’s approval of the program was a discretionary act and no special duty was owned plaintiff:

The school principal’s granting of a permit for MBS to operate on school grounds was a discretionary action taken during the performance of a governmental function, and thus, the DOE was shielded from liability by the doctrine of governmental immunity … . Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the DOE owed the infant plaintiff a special duty that would render the DOE liable to plaintiffs for negligent acts … . Likewise, as to the MBS flyer, the DOE cannot be held liable through the doctrine of apparent authority for issuance of the flyer without the required disclaimer. As with the approval of the permit, the school principal’s approval of the MBS flyer involved the exercise of her reasoned judgment and discretionary authority, thus entitling DOE to governmental function immunity … .

The DOE also cannot be held liable for negligently supervising Polanish and Gallagher’s conduct during the MBS program. That the DOE permitted MBS to run as an afterschool program on school grounds does not provide a basis for holding the DOE liable, since “[a] defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others, even where as a practical matter defendant can exercise such control” … . R.K. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 07092, First Dept 12-21-21

 

,

THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION CREATED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW APPLIES TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES,” NOT TO “ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Public Health Law 2801-d and 2803-c causes of action against defendant “assisted living facility” should have been dismissed. The private right of action created by the Public Health Law applies only to “residential health care facilities:

… [T]he plaintiff concedes that the facility in which Kramer was a resident was licensed as an “assisted living” facility, but asserts that it was operated as a de facto residential health care facility by virtue of the health-related services it provided, including management of medications, assistance with dressing and eating, and visits by nursing staff and physicians. Even accepting these allegations as true, they are insufficient to state a claim that the assisted living facility in which Kramer resided was a residential health care facility against which a private right of action pursuant to Public Health Law article 28 may be maintained (see Public Health Law § 2801[3] …). Broderick v Amber Ct. Assisted Living, 2021 NY Slip Op 06981, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant movie- theater manager, Adams, may have been acting within the scope of his employment by the theater, AMC, when he threatened plaintiff, a theater patron, with a pellet gun. Therefore AMC’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he general manager of the theater, Adams’s supervisor, stated, during his deposition, that managers, like Adams, have security-related responsibilities, including ensuring that the theater is safe for customers and dealing with unruly patrons. And the plaintiff, during his deposition, stated that he believed Adams was a security guard.

When a business employs security guards or bouncers to maintain order, the use of physical force may be within the scope of their employment … . Adams did not hold either of these job titles, but his responsibilities included maintaining order at the theater, ensuring the safety of customers and staff, and, if necessary, facilitating the removal from the theater of “disruptive or potentially violent” customers. The accomplishment of these ends by means prohibited by the AMC defendants’ policy was not necessarily unforeseeable. … Unquestionably, Adams’s response to the plaintiff and his friends was “in poor judgment” …  and contrary to the AMC defendants’ policy, but “this in itself does not absolve [the AMC] defendants of liability for his acts” … . Norwood v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 07006, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THE PAINT USED ON THE PARKING LOT SURFACE BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET AND WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PEDESTRIAN-TRAFFIC AREAS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there was a question of fact whether the department store, Costco, should have been aware that paint used in its parking lot was slippery when wet:

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of ‘wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge’ that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . Here, Costco established, prima facie, that it did not have actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge that the subject paint could render the walkway slippery … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact … . The plaintiff relied on, among other things, an “application bulletin” for the traffic marking paint used by Appell [the company hired by Costco], which was annexed to the expert report submitted by Appell … . The application bulletin acknowledges the inherent danger present when painted surfaces become wet, and explicitly states that the paint “should not be used to paint large areas subject to pedestrian traffic.” Considering the size of the painted area outside of the store entrance, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Costco should have known that the product could render the parking lot slippery. Westbay v Costco Wholesale Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 07023, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

,

THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF INSISTED ON THE PROCEDURE DESPITE THE RISKS OR DECLINED ANY PROFFERED EXPLANATION OF THE RISKS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court) determined the “lack of informed consent” to back surgery (implantation of an X-STOP device) should not have been dismissed:

As a defense to a medical malpractice action premised upon lack of informed consent, a practitioner may proffer evidence that “the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] would undergo the treatment, procedure or diagnosis regardless of the risk involved, or the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] did not want to be informed of the matters to which he [or she] would be entitled to be informed” (Public Health Law § 2805-d[4][b]). Here, although [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony made clear that he deferred to [defendant surgeon’s] judgment as to whether he should undergo a procedure and, if so, which procedure, it does not establish that [plaintiff] either insisted on the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices, rather than other treatment options, regardless of risk, or that he refused any proffered advice. On the contrary, the record establishes that, far from insisting on a contraindicated procedure, [plaintiff] relied upon [defendant surgeon’s] professional expertise in determining the correct course of treatment. Likewise, although [defendant surgeon’s] testimony establishes that he explained the benefits of performing the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices rather than a laminectomy, he did not testify that he offered, or that [plaintiff] declined, any proffered explanation of the risks and limitations of the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices. Mirshah v Obedian, 2021 NY Slip Op 06994, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING PORT AUTHORITY FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE IN A SAFE CONDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging defendant Port Authority breached its duty to maintain the George Washington Bridge (GWB) in a reasonably safe condition must be reinstated. Plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide by jumping from the bridge:

Plaintiff’s decedent died by suicide when he jumped from the George Washington Bridge (GWB), which is owned and operated by the Port Authority. Contrary to the Port Authority’s contention that the complaint is addressed to actions taken in its governmental capacity, both this Court and the Second Department have recently held, in cases involving similar facts, that the Port Authority’s responsibility for maintaining the guardrail on the pedestrian walkway over the Bridge is a proprietary function rather than a governmental function … . .. [P]laintiff states a cause of action by alleging that the Port Authority, as a property owner, “failed to maintain the GWB in a reasonably safe condition by negligently failing to install suicide barriers along the walkways to prevent suicides,” thus presenting a foreseeable risk of harm in light of the allegations concerning the history of the George Washington Bridge’s walkway as a place where frequent suicides occur. Lomtevas v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06953, First Dept 12-14-21

 

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