You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Circumstances Warranted Overcoming Physician-Patient Privilege—Substantive Explanation of the Privilege and Its Application (Including When a Court May Decline to Enforce It)

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff sought logs from the defendant-hospital which described the surgical procedures done by defendant surgeon during the times of plaintiff’s surgeries. The plaintiff sought to demonstrate the surgeon was doing too many procedures in too short a time to have properly performed them.  Although the hospital produced the logs, the information describing each procedure was redacted. Plaintiff’s motion to compel was denied by Supreme Court, which held the information about surgeries on non-party patients was privileged. The Second Department reversed.  Although the information was deemed privileged by the Second Department, the information could properly be discovered because it was “material and necessary” to the plaintiffs’ case and the privacy of the non-party patients could be protected by redaction.  The facts presented a situation where the court could properly decline to enforce the privilege. The Second Department provided a substantive explanation of the physician-patient privilege and its application:

… CPLR 4504(a) … provides that “[u]nless the patient waives the privilege, a person authorized to practice medicine . . . shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he [or she] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity” (CPLR 4504[a]…).

The enactment of the statutory physician-patient privilege “was based on the belief that fear of embarrassment or disgrace flowing from disclosure of communications made to a physician would deter people from seeking medical help and securing adequate diagnosis and treatment” … . “The privilege applies not only to information communicated orally by the patient, but also to information obtained from observation of the patient’s appearance and symptoms” …. “Moreover, the form in which the information is sought to be introduced is irrelevant, as the privilege operates whether the information is contained in a patient’s medical files or is sought to be introduced at trial in the form of expert testimony” … .

“That which the privilege seeks to protect, however, and thereby foster, are confidential communications, not the mere facts and incidents of a person’s medical history” … . The statute “is not intended to prohibit a person from testifying to such ordinary incidents and facts as are plain to the observation of any one without expert or professional knowledge” … . Accordingly, although the privilege protects a patient from the disclosure of a communication made to a doctor, “a witness may not refuse to answer questions regarding matters of fact . . . merely because those topics relate to events that required medical care or advice from a physician” … .

Furthermore, “where the application of a privilege will not serve to further the legitimate purposes for which it was created, there is little reason to permit its invocation” … . Accordingly, “courts may properly decline to enforce the physician-patient privilege where its invocation does not serve its policy objectives” … .

However, even where redaction of identifying information will ensure that the policy objectives of CPLR 4504(a) are not subverted, disclosure of otherwise privileged information should not be permitted where it is not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of [the] action” (CPLR 3101[a][1]…). Here, although the listing of each surgical procedure … was privileged under CPLR 4504(a) …, the plaintiff established that the subject information is indeed “material and necessary” (CPLR 3101[a]) in the prosecution of the action, and that the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege … .Cole v Panos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04269, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

“Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming” Rule Applied—Workers’ Compensation Claim Is Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s sole remedy against her employer (defendant Margaret Layton) was a Workers’ Compensation claim.  Plaintiff was asked by Layton to walk Layton’s dog because Layton was in court on a personal matter and could not walk the dog herself. Plaintiff fell down a staircase in Layton’s home, apparently in the course of walking the dog. The Second Department held that the walking of the dog “fell within the ‘special errand’ exception to the ‘going and coming’ rule of the Workers’ Compensation Law, thus making workers’ compensation the plaintiffs’ sole remedy” … In the usual case, injury incurred going to or coming from work is not within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law . Curley v Layton, 2015 NY Slip Op 04270, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Defense Counsel’s Main Reason for the Peremptory Challenges To Which the Prosecutor Objected, i.e., the Potential Jurors Had Been Crime-Victims, Was Not Pretextual

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because Supreme Court improperly applied the Batson doctrine and denied defense counsel’s peremptory challenges to two jurors.  The prosecutor raised a “reverse-Batson” objection to defense peremptory challenges alleging the defense was excluding “Asian persons.”  Defense counsel offered race-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges, the principal reason being that the potential jurors had been crime victims. Supreme Court found the proffered race-neutral reasons were pretextual.  The Second Department determined they were not:

“In Batson, the United States Supreme Court formulated a three-step test to assess whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories. In step one, the moving party must make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the facts and circumstances of the voir dire raise an inference that the other party excused one or more jurors for an impermissible reason. If the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the inquiry proceeds to step two, and the burden shifts to the adversary to provide a facially neutral explanation for the challenge. If the nonmoving party offers facially neutral reasons supporting the challenge, the inference of discrimination is overcome. Once facially neutral reasons are provided, the inquiry proceeds to step three, and the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination, and the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual” … . A trial court’s step-three determination that the facially race-neutral reasons for a nonmoving party’s peremptory challenges to particular jurors were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where such determination is supported by the record … . * * *

The record does not support the trial court’s step-three finding of fact as to the subject prospective juror, to wit, that other prospective jurors who were crime victims and who indicated that the incident would not affect them had nevertheless been seated. “[A]ssurances from a challenged prospective juror that he or she could assess the evidence in a fair manner even though he or she was a crime victim are irrelevant to the determination of whether the basis of a peremptory challenge is pretextual” … . Nonetheless, the record indicates that defense counsel treated such jurors consistently by exercising a peremptory challenge for another prospective juror who was not Asian but was a crime victim who provided assurance that nothing in her experience would affect her as a juror. In addition, although defense counsel did not exercise peremptory challenges for K.A.M. and G.A., defense counsel sufficiently distinguished the experiences of those jurors from that of the subject prospective juror, who had been robbed at gunpoint … . Consequently, the record supports a finding that defense counsel had legitimate, nonpretextual reasons for challenging prospective jurors based on their crime victim status … .People v Grant, 2015 NY Slip Op 04505, 2nd Dept 5-17-15

 

,

Deliberate Joinder of Claims for Legal and Equitable Relief Arising from the Same Transaction Constitutes a Waiver of the Right to Demand a Jury Trial

The Second Department noted that the deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising from the same transaction constitutes a waiver of the right to demand a jury trial. In addition, the court dismissed the aspect of the appeal for which the relevant portions of the record were omitted from the appendix. With respect to the contents of the appendix submitted on appeal, the Second Department wrote:

” An appellant who perfects an appeal by using the appendix method must file an appendix that contains all the relevant portions of the record in order to enable the court to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal'” … . “The appendix shall contain those portions of the record necessary to permit the court to fully consider the issues which will be raised by the appellant and the respondent” (22 NYCRR 670.10-b[c][1]; see CPLR 5528[a][5]). Here, the plaintiff omitted material excerpts from the transcripts of trial testimony and critical exhibits she relies on in seeking review of the dismissal of her disability discrimination cause of action. These omissions inhibit this Court’s ability to render an informed decision on the merits of the appeal … . Accordingly, the appeal from so much of the judgment as is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, in effect, dismissing the second cause of action must be dismissed. Zutrau v ICE Sys., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04479, 2nd Dept 5-1715

 

,

Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct of Judge Required New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case

The Second Department reversed and sent a medical malpractice case back for retrial on liability because of the excessive intervention and improper conduct by the trial judge.  The Second Department wrote:

…[T]he trial justice’s excessive intervention in the proceedings, as well as the cumulative effect of the trial court’s improper conduct, deprived the plaintiff of her right to a fair trial (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; 4017…). “[A]ll litigants, regardless of the merits of their case, are entitled to a fair trial” …. A trial justice plays a “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” but that “power is one that should be exercised sparingly” …. Accordingly, a trial justice may not ” so far inject himself [or herself] into the proceedings that the jury could not review the case in the calm and untrammelled spirit necessary to effect justice'” … .

A trial justice must maintain an atmosphere of impartiality. Here, while the plaintiff’s counsel may have been overly aggressive, and at times even antagonized the trial justice, nonetheless, a trial justice should ” at all times maintain an impartial attitude and exercise a high degree of patience and forebearance’ “…. Indeed, our review of the record convinces us that the repeated conflict between the court and the plaintiff’s counsel, at all phases of the trial-and often times in the presence of the jury-unnecessarily injected personality issues into the case, which militated against a fair trial. The trial justice demonstrated a propensity to interrupt, patronize, and admonish the plaintiff’s counsel, and gave the plaintiff’s counsel significantly less leeway with regard to examination and cross-examination of witnesses than that which was afforded the defendants’ counsel. *  *  *

Under the circumstances of this case, by virtue of the cumulative effect of the improper conduct of the trial justice, the plaintiff was deprived of a fair trial. As a result, the jury could not have considered the issues at trial in a fair, calm, and unprejudiced manner ….  Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03467, 2nd Dept 5-15-13

 

 

 

No Substantial Basis in the Record for Custody Determination

After the parents’ deaths the maternal and paternal grandmothers petitioned for custody of the child. The Second Department reversed Family Court, which had awarded custody to the maternal grandmother after a three-day hearing, and granted custody to the paternal grandmother, finding no sound and substantial basis for Family Court’s ruling in the record:

The essential consideration in any custody dispute is the best interests of the child … . In determining the best interests of the child, the court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances… . This Court’s authority in custody determinations is as broad as that of the hearing court …, and while we are mindful that the hearing court has an advantage in being able to observe the demeanor and assess the credibility of witnesses, we “would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a Trial Judge,” we allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record … .  Matter of Iams v Estate of Iams, 2013 NY Slip Op 03482, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

, ,

A Conditional Judgment May Be Rendered On the Issue of Contractual Indemnity—The Party Seeking Contractual Indemnity Must Be Free from Negligence

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when he fell from a ladder. The construction manager commenced a third-party action against the general contractor seeking contractual indemnification in the event the construction manager is liable to the plaintiff,. The Second Department noted that a ” ‘court may render a conditional judgment on the issue of contractual indemnity, pending determination of the primary action so that the indemnitee may obtain the earliest possible determination as to the extent to which he or she may expect to be reimbursed’ … . The party seeking contractual indemnification must establish that it was free from negligence and that it may be held liable solely by virtue of statutory or vicarious liability …”. Arriola v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04079, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

“Lack of Capacity to Sue” Defense Waived If Not Raised in Pleadings/Court Should Not Have Decided Summary Judgment Motion by Searching the Record and Ruling On Issues Not Raised by Anyone

In the context of a suit alleging conversion stemming from the handling of an estate, the Second Department determined the “lack of capacity to sue” defense had been waived because it was not raised by defendant in his pleadings.  The court further determined Surrogate’s Court exceeded its powers when it went beyond the issues placed before it plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, searched the record and decided the motion in defendant’s favor on grounds not raised by anyone:

[The defendant] waived the defense of lack of capacity by failing to raise such defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or in his answer to the amended complaint in the action (see CPLR 3211[e]…).

… [O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court … . “A motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense” … .

The Surrogate’s Court improperly searched the record and awarded summary judgment to [defendant] dismissing objections 1(i) and 9. [Plaintiff] moved for summary judgment on these objections solely on the grounds that he established that [defendant] converted funds from the father’s estate and failed to account for funds that the estate owed to [plaintiff]. [Defendant] did not cross-move for summary judgment dismissing those objections on the basis of the statute of limitations, nor did he argue it in opposition. In view of the limited scope of [plaintiff’s] motion, it was not appropriate to search the record and award summary judgment to [defendant] dismissing these objections upon arguments that were not raised … . Matter of Ray C., 2015 NY Slip Op 04134, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Admissions in Pleadings, Including the Failure to Deny an Allegation, Are Always In Evidence for All Purposes in a Trial

In a trial stemming from an automobile accident, during deliberations the jury asked if there was any evidence a defendant, Kahn, was the driver of one of the vehicles.  The judge responded “no.”  Ultimately the jury found in favor of the defendant.  The Second Department determined the judge’s telling the jury there was no evidence the defendant was the driver was reversible error. The defendant’s answer to the complaint included admissions re: operation.  The court noted that the failure to deny an allegation in a complaint is an admission. Pleadings “are always in evidence for all purposes of the trial of an action:”

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it advised the jury that there was no evidence in this case that would answer its question of whether Khan was the driver of the taxicab in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The failure to deny an allegation in a complaint constitutes an admission to the truth of that allegation (see CPLR 3018[a]…). “Facts admitted in a party’s pleadings constitute formal judicial admissions, and are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they are made” … . Moreover, “admissions . . . in pleadings are always in evidence for all the purposes of the trial of [an] action” … . In response to the jury’s inquiry about whether Khan was the driver, the court should have informed the jury of Khan’s and Ali’s admissions in their answer concerning their operation and ownership of a certain vehicle which was involved in an accident … on the same date as the plaintiff’s accident and at the same location, so that the jury could draw its own inferences on this question. DeSouza v Khan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04085, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, , ,

Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained

In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (where documentary evidence was submitted), the Second Department determined a mortgagee in possession of property (here because the property owner went bankrupt) has a duty to care for the property which is identical a property owner’s duty.  Here plaintiffs alleged the property, which had been damaged by fire, was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that plaintiffs’ neighboring property was damaged. The causes of action for nuisance, negligence and trespass survived the motion to dismiss.  The court noted its role when documentary evidence is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action:

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . While the documentary evidence submitted by One West established that it did not own the defendants’ property at any relevant time … , that evidence did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ contention that One West had a duty based on its status as a mortgagee in possession. In fact, the documents, which establish ownership, did not address the plaintiffs’ contention regarding One West’s alleged status as a mortgagee in possession … . Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” … .

The plaintiffs’ contention that [defendant] was a mortgagee in possession has not been shown to be “not a fact at all” … . If [defendant] were, in fact, a mortgagee in possession, it was “bound to employ the same care and supervision over the mortgaged premises that a reasonably prudent owner would exercise in relation to his [or her] own property; he [or she] is bound to make reasonable and needed repairs, and is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his willful default or gross neglect in this regard” … . Thus, the complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of the plaintiff Emeta Allen, which was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss …, properly set forth causes of action alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, and the plaintiffs have causes of action sounding in nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Allen v Echeverria, 2015 NY Slip Op 04075, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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