Source: https://nytortsweekly.com/july-3-2018-vol-113/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:50:45+00:00

Document:
In a 4/2 decision, the Court of Appeals clarified several issues regarding absolute and qualified immunity for administrative proceedings finding that the absolute immunity for statements made during an administrative proceeding does not apply to investigation proceedings which may result in an administrative proceeding. The FDA conducted an investigation and issued a report containing information about the plaintiff doctor’s involvement in a clinical study. The doctor was not given an opportunity to participate in the investigation and no administrative hearing was held. Under those circumstances, the Court found that the statements would be entitled to qualified not absolute immunity. The court also clarified that defamatory statements made during the course of an administrative proceeding are not entitled to absolute privilege where the defamed party does not have an opportunity to challenge the accusations, stating that the privilege “is not a license to destroy a person’s character by means of false, defamatory statements.” Stega v New York Downtown Hosp.
Defendants’ who drove their truck suddenly into the left lane where it was struck by the plaintiff police officer granted leave to amend BP to add affirmative defenses of emergency doctrine and seatbelt which were not palpably improper and did not require evidentiary proof. Plaintiff’s claim that seatbelt defense was barred by GML 205-e, which does not allow comparative fault, and by VTL provision showing that police officer is not required to wear a seatbelt rejected because the seatbelt defense goes to reduction of damages and not comparative fault and the jury could find failure to use an available seatbelt unreasonable without the statutory requirement. Plaintiff made a prima facie showing for summary judgment on GML §205-E but defendants raised an issue of fact on whether their driver’s response was reasonable in light of the emergency. Freder v Costello Indus., Inc.
NYC crossing guard’s greeting children as they crossed the intersection and the children’s reliance on the crossing guard was insufficient to establish a special duty where there was no direct contact between NYC and the injured child. Ivan D. v Little Richie Bus Serv. Inc.
Defendants granted summary judgment dismissing sexual abuse claims brought by father on behalf of his severely disabled daughter. Older claims dismissed as barred by statute of limitations, including 10-year toll for insanity. There was no fiduciary duty to inform father of the alleged incidents as he was not involved with his daughter’s care at that time. Newer claim that she must have been sexually abused because she contracted the human papilloma (HPV) dismissed as speculative. Acevedo v Episcopal Social Servs. of N.Y., Inc.
Defendant entitled to summary judgment on Labor Law §200 and negligence on proof that it did not create the condition nor have notice of it and did not have the authority to control the manner of the plaintiff’s delivery of materials. Labor Law §241(6) did not apply where the delivery area was not a “passageway” under industrial code §23-1.7(e)(1); there were no tripping hazards under §23-1.7(d) and (e); and §23-2.1(a)(1) was inapplicable. Gargan v Palatella Saros Bldrs. Group, Inc.
Motorist who struck bicyclist after bicyclist was initially struck by a taxi cab made out prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on emergency doctrine by showing that he had only seconds to react to a sudden unexpected condition not of his own making, but plaintiff raised an issue of fact in opposition as to whether defendant’s actions were reasonable in response to the emergency and whether defendant was following taxi to closely. Welch v Suffolk Coach, Inc.

References: §205
 §200
 §241
 §23
 §23
 §23