You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEE THE PLAINTIFF, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED BASED UPON ANOTHER DOCTOR’S ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF BE SEEN BY THOSE DEFENDANTS WITHIN ONE OR TWO DAYS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. One of the issues was whether defendants, who had never seen plaintiff, could be found to have had a patient-physician relationship based upon the failure to schedule an appointment within the time-frame ordered by another doctor:

… [P]laintiff acknowledges that she never received treatment from or spoke with Connolly or Retina Associates. Instead, plaintiff relies on a notation in her medical records from Twin Tiers stating that Rosenberg initially requested that she be evaluated by Retina Associates within one to two days and that a later appointment was scheduled only after Connolly apparently informed Twin Tiers that she “could wait to be seen until next week.” Moreover, after allegedly giving this advice regarding timing, Retina Associates scheduled the appointment beyond that acceptable time frame — for 13 days later. * * *

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a triable factual question exists regarding whether the notation in Twin Tiers’ chart — attributing a comment to Connolly regarding scheduling of treatment — is sufficient to establish an implied physician-patient relationship between plaintiff and Connolly or Retina Associates … . Marshall v Rosenberg, 2021 NY Slip Op 04180, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

,

THE FOUR-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY IN THIS RAPE CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the four-year pre-indictment delay in this rape case did not violate defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights. The dissent disagreed:

… [T]he preindictment delay of four years was lengthy and the reasons for the delay proffered by the People certainly left something to be desired. However, the People’s submissions established that the investigation was ongoing, that they were acting in good faith and that there were valid reasons for portions of the delay. Additionally, the charge of rape in the first degree can only be characterized as serious … . Furthermore, there was no period of pretrial incarceration and there is no indication that the defense was prejudiced by the delay. In fact, defendant became aware of the accusations against him shortly after the offense occurred. In our view, the seriousness of the offense, the fact that defendant was not incarcerated pretrial and the absence of any demonstrated prejudice outweigh the four-year delay and the shortcomings in the People’s reasons therefor … . People v Regan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04161, Second Dept 7-1-21

 

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’S) PURCHASED BY SUNY STONY BROOK FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES IN MADAGASCAR; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined New York did not have long-arm jurisdiction of the Michigan manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV”s) purchased by SUNY Stony Brook for use in Madagascar (delivering medical supplies to remote locations). Stony Brook returned the UAV’s as defective but defendant did not replace them or issue a refund:

… [D]efendant did not “purposefully avail[] itself of ‘the privilege of conducting activities within [New York],’ by . . . transacting business in New York,” thus invoking the benefits and protections of New York’s laws … . The various communications between the parties were twofold: first, to discuss the ongoing issues with the UAVs that SUNY Stony Brook purchased and, second, to create a relationship and to submit grants for projects that would take place entirely and solely outside of New York. Regardless of the quantity of defendant’s communications with SUNY Stony Brook, these communications did not result in more sales in New York or seek to advance defendant’s business contacts within New York … . Rather, the business transacted — specifically the sale of the UAVs to SUNY Stony Brook for use in Madagascar — was a one-time occurrence that resulted after the professor commenced employment with SUNY Stony Brook in 2015 and then contacted the CEO … . The visit by the CEO to New York in 2017 was for the purpose of discussing issues regarding the completed purchase of the UAVs, rather than seeking additional business from SUNY Stony Brook or other entities in New York … . The UAVs were shipped to Madagascar and subsequently returned to defendant in Michigan. The grant that SUNY Stony Brook and defendant applied for was not intended to benefit New York, but rather other countries. Given these facts, we find that defendant could not reasonably have expected to defend this action in New York and, thus, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. State of New York v Vayu, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04068, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

,

14-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH RETRACTED BLEACHERS DURING A BASKETBALL PRACTICE DRILL IN WHICH BOUNDARY LINES WERE TO BE IGNORED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case should have been granted. The 14-year-old plaintiff was participating in a basketball practice drill in which the boundary lines of the court were to be ignored. When plaintiff attempted to retrieve a ball that went over the boundary line she was pushed into the retracted bleachers. The Third Department held plaintiff assumed the risk of injury during that form of practice:

“The primary assumption of risk doctrine . . . encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions” … . The opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the drill could have been safer by utilizing the boundary lines of the basketball court and having more space was insufficient to raise an issue of fact given that the failure to do so did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the drill or playing basketball … . Plaintiff’s expert likewise failed to cite to any specific industry standard violated by defendants … . Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the boundary lines of the basketball court acted as, or were intended to be, a safety mechanism to prevent a player’s collision with the bleachers. Because plaintiff did not satisfy her burden, defendants’ motion should have been granted … . Secky v New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04071, Second Dept 6-24-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER AND THE ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HIS MOTHER; THE FILM ABOUT THE CRIMES DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50 AND 51 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision well-worth reading, determined defendant, the creator of a docudrama about Christopher Porco’s murder and attempted murder convictions, did not violate Porco’s right to privacy under Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The statutes allow the depiction of newsworthy events, but the statutes could be violated by fictional material. The Third Department determined the “dramatized” or “fictional” aspects of the film did not violate the statutes, in part because the audience is notified that the film is “based on a true story” and includes dramatized and fictionalized material:

… [T]he film is a dramatization that at times departed from actual events, including by recreating dialogue and scenes, using techniques such as flashbacks and staged interviews, giving fictional names to some individuals and replacing others altogether with composite characters. The film nevertheless presents a broadly accurate depiction of the crime, the ensuing criminal investigation and the trial that are matters of public interest. More importantly, the film makes no effort to present itself as unalloyed truth or claim that its depiction of plaintiffs was entirely accurate, instead alerting the viewer at the outset that it is only “[b]ased on a true story” and reiterating at the end that it is “a dramatization” in which “some names have been changed, some characters are composites and certain other characters and events have been fictionalized.” In our view, the foregoing satisfied defendant’s initial burden of showing that the film addressed matters of public interest through a blend of fact and fiction that was readily acknowledged, did not mislead viewers into believing that its related depictions of plaintiffs was true and was not, as a result, “so infected with fiction, dramatization or embellishment that it cannot be said to fulfill the purpose of the newsworthiness exception” … . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04072, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

, ,

AS LONG AS BOTH THE CERTIFIED AND FIRST-CLASS-MAIL LETTERS NOTIFYING A MORTGAGEE OF A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE ARE NOT RETURNED, THE MORTGAGEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 1125 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff property owner, pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125, was properly notified of the tax foreclosure proceedings, despite plaintiff’s allegation that the certified letter was delivered to a post office box, not the street address. RPTL 1125 deems service accomplished if the letters are not returned:

Defendants were required to send the notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding to plaintiff “by certified mail and ordinary first class mail” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] … ). The record contains documentary evidence demonstrating that the petition and notice of foreclosure were sent via certified mail and first class mail to plaintiff at “4153 Broadway” in Kansas City, Missouri — the address for plaintiff as listed on the mortgage … .The record also discloses that neither of these mailings was returned. Accordingly, defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they complied with RPTL 1125.

In opposition thereto, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the tracking information sheet for the certified mailing sent by the County. This sheet indicated that the certified mailing was delivered to an unspecified post office box, as opposed to 4153 Broadway, in Kansas City, Missouri. To that end, plaintiff asserts that a material issue of fact exists as to whether it received notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding. The petition and notice of foreclosure sent to plaintiff, however, “shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States [P]ostal [S]ervice within [45] days after being mailed” (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2021 NY Slip Op 04074, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER WHO WORKED AT A VEHICLE CHECKPOINT FOR TRAFFIC TO AND FROM GROUND ZERO AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DESTROYED, PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEANUP WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28; THEREFORE HIS CLAIM (BASED UPON TOXIN-RELATED INJURY) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant police officer did participate in the cleanup operations at ground zero and his claim should not have been disallowed as untimely pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 28. Claimant worked at a vehicle checkpoint for traffic to and from ground zero and alleged injury from toxins in the environment:

… [C]laimant worked at a vehicle checkpoint and he testified that he was assigned to control traffic at the intersection of West and Canal Streets from January 31, 2002 to February 6, 2002. Claimant further testified that his duties at the checkpoint included stopping traffic and clearing routes for emergency and construction vehicles travelling to and from ground zero. According to claimant, he assisted getting vehicles through the checkpoint, “[w]hether it was construction, whether it was [f]ire department [or] family members.” By providing such assistance, we find that claimant’s activities had a tangible connection to the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the WTC [World Trade Center] site … . As such, and in light of the liberal construction afforded this remedial statute, we conclude that the Board’s determination that Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A does not apply because claimant did not participate in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at ground zero is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the claim should not have been disallowed as untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 … . Matter of Bodisch v New York State Police, 2021 NY Slip Op 03889, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

,

PETITIONER, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ASKED BY HER SUPERVISOR TO PICK UP A LARGE BREAKFAST ORDER FOR THE PRECINCT; PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHEN RETURNING WITH THE ORDER; PETITIONER WAS “IN SERVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WHEN SHE FELL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner, a police officer, was in service when she slipped on ice and her application for accidental disability benefits should not have been denied on that ground. The matter was sent back for a determination when the fall was an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law:

Respondent’s determination that petitioner was not in service because she was performing “a personal activity” at the time of her 2011 injury is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner testified that, on the day of the incident, her supervisor asked if the desk duty officers were going to get breakfast. According to petitioner, the supervisor then requested that someone contact a patrol officer that was on the road and have him or her pick up breakfast for the precinct. … A fellow officer that was in the precinct at the time volunteered to go and asked petitioner to accompany him to help carry the large order. According to petitioner, her supervisor then gave her permission to go and he paid for the breakfast order. Upon her return to the precinct with the breakfast order, she slipped on ice while walking in the parking lot. In our view, by going out to pick up a breakfast order for the precinct at the behest of her supervisor, petitioner was performing a work duty rather than engaged in a personal activity … . Matter of Arroyo v DiNapoli, 2021 NY Slip Op 03895, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled this case sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence, and explained the difference. Plaintiff had been given the wrong dosage of tPA upon arrival at the hospital to address symptoms of a stroke. Due to a mistake, the machine was programmed to administer a quantity of the drug for “11” minutes, instead of the “1” minute ordered by the doctor. The mistake was noticed after three minutes:

… [T]he case is one of medical malpractice only. “Conduct may be deemed malpractice, rather than negligence, when it constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician” … . “The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . As relevant here, plaintiffs’ claims are based upon allegations that defendants acted negligently in their medical care and treatment of plaintiff — i.e., defendants’ actions or omissions with respect to the proper dosing of tPA, the progression of the stroke with or without the proper administration of tPA, the medical benefits and risks of tPA based on the proper or improper administration of the medication, and the potential loss of the opportunity to attain tPA’s benefits based on its improper administration. Although it is undisputed that a nurse inadvertently mis-administered the tPA by erroneously programming the pump, she was assisting the physician by administering the prescribed medication and was an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to the patient. The nurse’s error does not transform this case to one of simple negligence rather than medical malpractice … . Holland v Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03896, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Raymond F’s request for a genetic marker test should not have been denied. The evidence did not demonstrate a parent-child relationship such that Raymond F should be equitably estopped from denying paternity:

The application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not involve the equities between adult participants to the paternity proceedings … . “Rather, in the context of a paternity proceeding, it is the child’s justifiable reliance on a representation of paternity that is considered and, therefore, the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the subject child” … . …

The trial testimony established that the mother and Trini G., the mother’s boyfriend with whom she and her children lived for nine years (from the time the child was two to three months old), “co-parented” all of the children by contributing financially to their care and feeding, bathing and playing with them. Trini G. referred to the child as “stepson” and the child called him “daddy.” The record established that Reymond F. had no contact with the child since birth, except during sporadic visits between Reymond F. and his two older children. Reymond F. testified that he did not do “anything” with the child during these visits, was not called “dad” and did not call the child “son.” He further testified that he never called the child on the phone, never gave him gifts and never checked on his educational or medical issues. The mother testified that, while she did not encourage the child to have a relationship with Reymond F., the child knew that Reymond F. was his biological father. Matter of Montgomery County Dept. of Social Servs. v Trini G., 2021 NY Slip Op 03489, Third Dept 6-3-21

 

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