You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , , ,

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND RETENTION CASE, THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF A NON-PARTY WITNESS WHO ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT DOCTOR ARE DISCOVERABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY INCLUDE NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INDICATING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, THE NON-PARTY WITNESS DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY DISCUSSING HER MEDICAL HISTORY IN A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the medical records of a non-party witness were discoverable only to the extent that they included non-privileged information demonstrating defendant Huntington Medical Group (HMG) was on notice that defendant doctor (Wishner) had acted improperly with patients. Plaintiff sued HMG alleging negligent hiring, supervision and retention of Wishner. Plaintiff had deposed a non-party witness who apparently had alleged improper conduct by Wishner. Defendants sought to discover the non-party witness’s medical records. The Second Department noted that the defendants (1) had not shown the medical records were relevant to the improper conduct allegations and (2) the non-party witness had not waived the physician-patient privilege. The matter was remitted for an in camera review of the records by Supreme Court:

The physician-patient privilege seeks to protect confidential communications relating to the nature of the treatment rendered and the diagnosis made … . The physician-patient privilege applies to information communicated by the patient while the physician attends the patient in a professional capacity, as well as information obtained from observation of the patient’s appearance and symptoms … . “The privilege applies at examinations before trial, and it covers both oral testimony and documents, such as hospital records, which presumably are drawn up in large part based on communications imparted by the patient to the treating physician” … .

Here, the nonparty witness expressly declined to waive the physician-patient privilege as to her medical records, and her deposition testimony with respect to the facts of Wishner’s alleged improper conduct during the subject physical examination and the facts and incidents of her medical history does not constitute privileged information … . Thus, the nonparty witness did not waive the physician-patient privilege as to her medical records … . …

… [P]rivileged medical records may contain nonprivileged information that could be discoverable if relevant … . Thus, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, … for an in camera inspection of the nonparty witness’ medical records stored by HMG for a determination of whether such records, or any parts thereof, contain any nonprivileged information relevant to the issue of whether HMG was on notice of Wishner’s alleged improper conduct toward patients during his examination of them and, if so, for the entry of an order directing that such nonprivileged information, if any, shall be produced to the defendants. Mullen v Steven G. Wishner, 2019 NY Slip Op 04180, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES TO SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS HAD TEMPORARILY MOVED OUT OF THE RESIDENCE DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS SHE INTENDED TO RETURN, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the designating petition should not have been invalidated on the basis of challenged signatures and the residence of the subscribing witness. The candidate (Brezler) was not given the opportunity to respond to the challenged signatures and, although the subscribing witness was not residing at the stated address, she had moved out only temporarily due to construction:

“The Supreme Court may entertain specific objections to signatures on a designating petition that were not asserted before a board of elections to the extent the respondent was given adequate notice of which signatures on his or her designating petition are being challenged and the grounds thereof” … . Here, Brezler was not given notice, until the hearing on the invalidation petition was underway, that the petitioners were challenging numerous signatures on the ground that they did not match those signatories’ signatures on their buff cards and that the Supreme Court would be comparing the majority of the challenged signatures to those voters’ buff cards to determine whether the signatures on the designating petition matched those on the buff cards. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, their specifications of objections filed with the Westchester County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) and incorporated by reference into the invalidation petition did not provide notice of this basis for challenging the signatures. …

A subscribing witness is required to include, in the Statement of Witness, his or her residence address (see Election Law § 6-132[2]). This requirement “protects the integrity of the nominating process by assuring that a subscribing witness is subject to subpoena in a proceeding challenging the petition” … . The Election Law defines the term “residence” as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return” (Election Law § 1-104[22] …). The “crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence without any aura of sham'” … . Matter of Walfish v Brezler, 2019 NY Slip Op 04179, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

, ,

ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF AFTER SURGERY RESULTING IN MEMORY LOSS WAS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT, THEREFORE A CAUSE OF ACTION RESULTING FROM PLAINTIFF’S LEAVING THE HOSPITAL SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, ALTHOUGH PARTIALLY GRANTED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action against defendant hospital sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence, and plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a medical-malpractice cause of action (which was granted by Supreme Court) and other allegations should have been granted in its entirety. Plaintiff suffered memory loss after surgery and repeatedly threatened to leave the hospital. She did in fact leave and was not found for five days. The Second Department determined the failure to supervise plaintiff was an element of her treatment and therefore the actions sounded in medical malpractice:

… [W]hen the complaint challenges the medical facility’s performance of functions that are “an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment” and diagnosis to a patient, such as taking a medical history and determining the need for restraints, it sounds in medical malpractice … .

… [T]he allegations at issue essentially challenged the hospital’s assessment of the plaintiff’s supervisory and treatment needs … . Thus, the conduct at issue derived from the duty owed to the plaintiff as a result of a physician-patient relationship and was substantially related to her medical treatment … . …

… “Applications for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment (1) would unfairly prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or (2) is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Here, there was no showing of prejudice, and the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was not papably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Therefore, the court should not have limited the allegations that the plaintiff could include in her amended complaint. Jeter v New York Presbyt. Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04148, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not submit proof it had the financial ability to close:

“A plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform his or her obligations under the contract” … . “[C]onclusory assertions that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform, are insufficient to satisfy this burden” … .

“When a purchaser submits no documentation or other proof to substantiate that it had the funds necessary to purchase the property, it cannot prove, as a matter of law, that it was ready, willing, and able to close” … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment on a complaint seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must submit evidence demonstrating its financial ability to purchase the property, and in the absence of such evidence, the motion must be denied … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property. More specifically, the conclusory assertions of Gavriel Yakubov, the alleged sole member of the plaintiff, that he had always been, and remained, ready, willing, and able to close, absent any evidence demonstrating the plaintiff’s financial ability to close, were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property … . GLND 1945, LLC v Ballard, 2019 NY Slip Op 04143, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ELIMINATE A TRIPPING HAZARD WAS NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS DID NOT FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer to offer a work-training program, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff who tripped and fell over extension cord wires during the training session. The only Espinal exception alleged was that the defendant launched an instrument of harm, which was deemed inapplicable by the Second Department. The alleged failure to eliminate the tripping hazard was not actionable:

“[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … . However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm’; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

… The Supreme Court’s determination that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant negligently failed to correct the alleged tripping hazard amounts to a finding that the defendant may have merely failed to become “an instrument for good,” which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party … . Espeleta v Synergy Resources, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04138, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

,

911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the victim’s 911 call was properly admitted as an excited utterance, even though the call was made about five minutes after the assault with a butcher knife:

“A spontaneous declaration or excited utterance— made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event—which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay” … . The determination of admissibility of a statement as an excited utterance is entrusted in the first instance to the trial court, which “must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth” … . Here, the evidence demonstrated that the 911 calls qualified as excited utterances. First, the nature of the attack on the complainant was the type of startling event that would cause “physical shock or trauma” … . Further, the 911 calls were made only approximately five minutes after the event, and in those intervening minutes, the complainant ran across the street from the scene of the incident to his apartment to bandage his wound. Under these circumstances, this short interval of time did not “detract[ ] from [the] spontaneity” of the statements … . People v Jaber, 2019 NY Slip Op 03988, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY CHARGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff had no memory of the accident and testified about his habit or routine practice of riding his bicycle home from work. The court had given the Noseworthy jury instruction:

The plaintiff testified that, while he did not recall the accident, he did recall leaving work and getting on his bicycle with the intent of taking the route he usually took home, which route he detailed, explaining that he took the same route every day, except for when he took the bus. While that route would have had the plaintiff traveling with traffic at the time of the accident, the defendant testified, inter alia, that the plaintiff was traveling against traffic … . …

The jury could have credited the plaintiff’s testimony as to his habit or routine practice, as to which the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence “to allow the inference of its persistence” at the time of this accident … , while also making reasonable inferences based on the defendant’s own testimony that, inter alia, the defendant failed to see that which through proper use of the driver’s senses she should have seen, for which the defendant could be found liable even if the plaintiff, as the defendant here argues, could not establish that he obeyed all the rules of the road … . Ortega v Ting, 2019 NY Slip Op 03977, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

,

LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Coinmach, which leased the laundry room, was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury case. Plaintiff alleged the soap tray on the washing machine she was using came all the way out of the machine when she pulled it open, causing her to fall backward from an elevated step in front of the machine. The Second Department determined Coinmach, the lessee of the laundry room, could be held liable because it was responsible for maintaining the laundry room. The court further held that Coinmach did not eliminate questions of fact concerning its constructive notice of the defect which caused the tray to pull out of the machine, because there was no evidence when the machine was last inspected:

Coinmach was the lessee of the laundry room with “the sole and exclusive occupancy, possession and control” for a term of seven years. In return, Coinmach agreed to make monthly rent payments. A tenant has a common-law duty to keep the premises it occupies in a reasonably safe condition, even when the landlord has explicitly agreed in the lease to maintain the premises … . …

Coinmach failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have constructive notice that the soap tray was broken. Coinmach’s area vice president testified at his deposition that Coinmach did not perform any routine maintenance on the machines, which were serviced whenever Coinmach received a service call requesting repairs. The area vice president testified that at each such service call, the technician would perform a “touch and feel test” on each machine, which would include opening the soap tray to make sure it was secure. However, there is no evidence in the record as to the date of the last service call, and therefore no evidence as to when Coinmach last inspected the subject soap tray before the injured plaintiff’s accident … . Gatto v Coinmach Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS NECK ATTEMPTING TO THROW A HEAVY HOSE TO AN AREA 15 TO 20 FEET ABOVE HIM, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff injured his neck attempting to throw a hose to an area 15 to 20 feet above him:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict liability on building owners and contractors for failure to provide proper protection against elevation-related hazards … . At the time that the plaintiff was injured, he was standing on the ground level, moving a 100-pound hose. Although the accident tangentially involved elevation, it was not caused by any elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute … . Clark v FC Yonkers Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03948, Second Dept 5-22-10

 

BARKING AND STRAINING AT THE LEASH CONSTITUTE NORMAL CANINE BEHAVIOR AND DID NOT SERVE TO MAKE DEFENDANTS AWARE OF THE DOG’S ALLEGED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case was properly granted. The fact that defendants were aware the dog had barked at plaintiff and her dog and strained at his leash did not demonstrate defendants were aware of defendants’ dog’s vicious propensities:

Here, the … defendants … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the dog did not have vicious propensities and, in any event, that they neither knew nor should have known that the dog had vicious propensities … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the dog had vicious propensities. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony that the dog barked at her and her dog and that the dog strained its leash toward her dog was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had vicious propensities … . Moreover, regardless of whether the Beach Haven defendants were aware of the behavior the plaintiff described in her testimony, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the Beach Haven defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s allegedly vicious propensities. The dog’s actions in barking at another dog and pulling its leash are “consistent with normal canine behavior” … . Bukhtiyarova v Cohen, 2019 NY Slip Op 03945, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

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