New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: November 6, 2024

Pleva v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 222 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a legal action seeking damages for negligence, assault, and battery, the defendants appealed a Suffolk County Supreme Court order dated September 10, 2020. The order denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligence, assault, and battery.

A cause of action for negligence arises when a person breaches their duty to act with reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another party. In legal terms, negligence involves the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate four key elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

On the other hand, a cause of action for assault and battery involves intentional conduct that causes harmful or offensive contact with another person. Assault refers to the threat or attempt to inflict harm, while battery involves actual physical contact. Unlike negligence, which focuses on the failure to exercise reasonable care, assault and battery require intent or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant.

Published on: October 30, 2024

Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissal in a jail suicide case. Rappaport v. Corr. Med. Care, 159 N.Y.S.3d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Adam Rappaport highlights the legal responsibilities of law enforcement and medical providers in ensuring the safety of individuals in custody. Rappaport was found hanging in his cell, which led to a lawsuit against several parties, including Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC) and the Town of Guilderland. The plaintiff, individually and as the administrator of Rappaport’s estate, brought forth claims of negligence, wrongful death, and violations of federal law.

Background Facts

Adam Rappaport had a history of heroin use and was in the process of withdrawing when he was arrested on October 15, 2014. The following day, he was transferred from the custody of the Town of Guilderland to Albany County for detention at the Albany County Correctional Facility (ACCF). Upon his transfer to ACCF, Rappaport underwent a screening process conducted by a nurse employed by Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC). During this screening, the nurse noted Rappaport’s history of heroin abuse, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Rappaport reported that he had injected two bundles of heroin the day before his arrest and informed the nurse that he had never considered or attempted suicide. Despite his medical history and the fact that he was withdrawing from heroin, Rappaport was placed in the general population rather than being referred to the mental health unit.

Published on: October 28, 2024

Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

It’s no secret that most prisons in New York are dangerous and there is violence, particularly in the maximum security correctional facilities such as Sing Sing. Prisoners attack each other, leaving serious injuries. While corrections officers are charged with ensuring the safety of inmates, the facility is not always liable when an inmate is seriously injured by another inmate. On the other hand, there are instances in which an the facility can be held liable and required to pay compensation to the injured inmate or their family.

In the case of Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019), the legal proceedings focused on the state’s failure to provide adequate security at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, which led to an inmate’s severe injuries.

Background Facts

Published on: October 2, 2024

Court determined that nursing home violated New York Public Health Law § 2801-d and upheld jury award of $2,500,000 pain and suffering. Smith v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 70 Misc. 3d 891 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, nursing home residents are protected under Public Health Law § 2801-d, which ensures their right to adequate care and treatment. This law guarantees that residents receive proper healthcare, are treated with dignity and respect, and are free from abuse and neglect. It also protects their personal autonomy, allowing them to participate in decisions about their care and living in a safe and clean environment. Residents are entitled to be informed of their rights, and if these rights are violated, they can seek compensation through legal action. This law holds nursing homes accountable for the care they provide, ensuring the well-being and protection of residents.

Smith v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 70 Misc. 3d 891 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) is an example where this law played a critical role and highlights the responsibilities of nursing homes under New York law and the potential consequences of failing to meet these obligations.

Background Facts

Published on: September 30, 2024

Whether police used excessive force when responding to claims of a domestic dispute. Benitez v. The City of New York, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50370 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs Melody Ann Benitez (“Ms. Benitez”) and Angel Antonio Castro (“Mr. Castro”) filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries and civil rights violations allegedly sustained during an incident on September 29, 2016. They claim that events that unfolded that evening, including encounters with the police and hospital security, resulted in false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution.

Background Facts

On the evening of September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs attended a scholarship dinner hosted by the Puerto Rican Bar Association, where they consumed alcoholic drinks. After the dinner, they were walking in New York City to hail a taxi when police officers approached them in response to a call regarding a possible domestic assault. Ms. Benitez and Mr. Castro were both interviewed separately by the officers.

Published on: September 18, 2024

Court refused to hear inmates claims related to violation of freedom of religion. Word v. Croce, 00 Civ. 6496 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates in New York have rights to practice their religion, protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. These rights include the freedom to believe in and worship any religion of their choice. The New York Department of Corrections is required to accommodate inmates’ religious practices to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with prison security or discipline. This means providing reasonable opportunities for religious services, access to religious materials, and dietary accommodations for religious beliefs.

However, these rights are not absolute. Prison officials can impose restrictions on religious practices if they have a legitimate penological interest, such as maintaining order or security within the facility. Inmates may also face limitations if their religious practices pose a threat to themselves or others, or if accommodating their practices would place an undue burden on the prison system.

Inmates who believe their religious rights have been violated can seek recourse through the legal system. They may file grievances within the prison system or pursue legal action in state or federal court. Courts will consider the inmate’s claims and weigh them against the prison’s interests in maintaining security and order.

Published on: September 11, 2024

Court granted partial summary judgment; failure to intervene in prison assault case remains.. Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

While it stands to reason that if a corrections officer uses excessive force against a prisoner, that officer and the faclity would be liable for serious injuries suffered by the prisoner. However, it is also the case that under certain circumstances, the facility may be liable where one prisoner assaults and injures another inmate.

Failure to intervene refers to the omission by a person in a position of authority, such as a corrections officer, to take action to prevent harm when they have the opportunity and duty to do so. In the context of prison settings, it involves not stopping an assault or other harmful actions occurring between inmates. This failure can result in serious consequences for those harmed and may lead to legal liability for the responsible parties if it is determined that their inaction contributed to the injuries or harm suffered by the victim.

In Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016), the inmate plaintiff alleges that correction officers failed to intervene when he was being assaulted by another inmate. The plaintiff is seeking to hold the correctional facility liable and has demanded compensation.

Published on: September 2, 2024

Whether defendant is a “residential health care facility” as defined by §2801-d of the Public Health Law. Burkhart v. People, Inc., 10 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York’s Public Health Law § 2801-d allows patients of residential health care facilities, like nursing homes, to pursue legal action if they are deprived of rights or benefits outlined in contracts or state regulations. The law provides a means for patients to seek compensation when facilities fail to meet standards that ensure their well-being, addressing issues such as inadequate care or violation of regulatory requirements.

In Burkhart v. People, Inc., 10 N.Y.S.3d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015), the court had to decide whether the facility qualified as a “residential health care facility” under New York’s Public Health Law § 2801-d. This case arose after Brian Burkhart, a developmentally disabled resident, suffered severe injuries due to alleged negligence by the group home’s employees.

Background Facts

Published on: August 19, 2024

Plaintiffs claimed that the police conducted an unlawful research of her store. Borisova v. Friberg, 18-CV-7440 (AMD) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Borisova v. Friberg, the plaintiff brought a legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against William Friberg, his company, Triple I Associates, as well as police officers Elizabeth Drozd-Spidle and Rebecca Coogan, and the City of New York (the “City Defendants”). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants unlawfully searched her store and arrested her on charges of selling counterfeit merchandise. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were partially denied and partially granted.

Background

The plaintiff owned Marina’s Mall, a retail store in Brooklyn, selling fragrances, costume jewelry, and accessories. On October 4, 2017, William Friberg, a former NYPD officer turned private investigator, entered the store and later returned with Officers Drozd-Spidle and Coogan, accusing the plaintiff of selling counterfeit fragrances. Despite the plaintiff offering to show receipts of her purchases, Friberg proceeded to inspect the merchandise himself, even opening drawers and examining their contents.

Published on: August 7, 2024

Second Circuit determined that inmate’s First Amendment rights and Eighth Amendment rights lacked clarity in their establishment during the relevant time period. Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, inmates have rights to freedom of religion, protected under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. They cannot be subjected to medical procedures conflicting with their religious beliefs, as upheld by courts, ensuring religious accommodation within correctional facilities. In Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010) plaintiff Kevin Redd, who was an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, argued that their religious freedoms where violated because he refused to to take a test for TB.

Background Facts

The Department of Corrections (DOCS) conducts routine purified protein derivative (PPD) tests on inmates to detect latent tuberculosis (TB) infections. In 1996, DOCS established a policy where inmates who refused the PPD test were counseled and then placed in TB hold, resulting in keeplock status in their cells. These inmates were offered the PPD test daily for one week, weekly for one month, and monthly thereafter. Refusal led to one year in TB hold, during which three chest x-rays were taken. After a year and three negative x-rays, inmates could return to the general population.