New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

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.

Published on: August 5, 2024

Court determined that there were issues of fact about nursing home’s inspection failure and evidence spoliation. Turner v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018

by Stephen Bilkis

Turner v. N. Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) involves the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the injury and subsequent death of Sarah Louise Drayton, a long-term resident of a New York nursing home. The legal action arose from alleged negligence by the nursing home staff during a routine transfer using a Hoyer lift.

A Hoyer lift transfer is a procedure used to safely move individuals with limited mobility, such as those in nursing homes or hospitals, from one position to another, typically from a bed to a wheelchair or vice versa. The Hoyer lift is a mechanical device that consists of a hydraulic or electric-powered lift and a sling, which is placed under the patient. The sling is then attached to the lift, and the patient is carefully lifted and transferred to the desired location. This process requires trained caregivers to ensure that the sling is properly positioned and secured, minimizing the risk of injury to both the patient and the caregivers. Hoyer lifts are commonly used to assist patients who cannot move on their own due to conditions such as paralysis, severe injury, or chronic illness.

Background Facts

Published on: July 31, 2024

Flynn v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, corrections officers have a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of inmates while they are in custody. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, officers must avoid inflicting unnecessary and excessive harm on inmates. They are required to act with a standard of care that a reasonable person in their position would consider appropriate. This means taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, such as monitoring inmate interactions and intervening in conflicts. Additionally, corrections officers must ensure that inmates receive adequate medical and mental health care, providing timely medical attention and addressing any mental health needs. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to claims of negligence and constitutional violations. Proper supervision is also a crucial aspect of the duty of care; officers are responsible for maintaining a secure environment by preventing and addressing situations that could lead to harm. This includes intervening in conflicts and implementing preventive measures to protect inmates from potential violence by other inmates or self-harm.

In Flynn v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the plaintiffs question whether Corrections Officer Stephen Barr violated his duty of care and as a result, the inmate suffered a serious injury.

Background Facts

Published on: July 10, 2024

Supreme Court, Dutchess County determined that deputies’ actions caused injury to inmate. Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, excessive force by police occurs when officers use more physical force than necessary to achieve a lawful objective. This includes actions that are unreasonable, unjustified, or beyond what a reasonable officer would use under the circumstances, potentially violating a person’s constitutional rights.

Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) involves the City of Poughkeepsie, the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department, and Officer Michael Labrada and legal questions about the use of force, false arrest, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983.

Background Facts

Published on: July 9, 2024

Williams v. City of N.Y., 129 A.D.3d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case seeking damages for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, police officers in New York appealed a decision denying their motion for summary judgment. The case involved allegations of excessive force during an arrest. The officers, William Danchak, Richard E. Pignatelli, James E. Halleran, Edward J. Deighan, and Michael E. Knott, were employed by the City of New York.

In a case alleging that police violated civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove several key elements. Firstly, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant, typically a government official or entity, acted under the color of state law. This means the defendant was acting in an official capacity or using power given to them by the state. In this case, the defendants were police officers acting in an official capacity. Secondly, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived them of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law. This could include rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or the Eighth Amendment, protecting against cruel and unusual punishment.

Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that this deprivation was intentional, meaning the defendant knowingly or recklessly violated their rights. It’s important to note that negligence or mere mistakes are generally not enough to establish a § 1983 claim; there must be a deliberate disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions caused them harm, which can include physical injury, emotional distress, or other forms of damage.

Published on: July 3, 2024

Austin v. Jewish Home & Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 30581 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to pursuing claims against negligent nursing homes for abuse or negligence, claims must be filed within the limitations periods. In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is generally three years from the date of the injury. This means that a lawsuit for personal injuries must be filed within three years of the date the injury occurred.

In Austin v. Jewish Home & Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 30581 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), the plaintiff alleged that the nursing home was negligent, resulting in serious injuries to the resident and their wrongful death. The issue before the court was not only whether the nursing home was negligent, but also whether the claims were time-barred due to the statute of limitations.

Background Facts

Published on: July 1, 2024

Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of inmate, allowing him to avoid going on the special hold designed for inmates who forgo the tuberculosis screening. Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

Upon arrival at New York prisons, new inmates undergo a comprehensive screening process to detect communicable diseases like tuberculosis (TB). This testing is essential due to the highly contagious nature of TB and the close living quarters within correctional facilities, which create an environment conducive to disease transmission.

The screening typically involves a series of steps, starting with a thorough medical history review and physical examination. Inmates are often required to undergo a tuberculin skin test (TST) or a blood test to check for TB infection. Those who test positive may undergo further evaluation, including chest X-rays, to confirm the presence of active TB disease.

However, some inmates object to some screening tests based on religious belief. The Constitution guarantees inmates freedom of speech and freedom to practice their religion of choice. Failure to do so may be a type of inmate abuse. In Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003), plaintff Selam Selah, an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, objected to tuberculosis screening based on religious beliefs. An inmate who refuses the PPD test is placed in tuberculin hold.