Mejia v Laffer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Mejia v Laffer 2013 NY Slip Op 30524(U) March 6, 2013 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 10778/2012 Judge: William B. Rebolini Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Short Foi i i i Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 7 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRE:SE N T : WILLIAM B. REBOLINI Justice Antonia Mejia, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jennifer Mejia, deceased and Antonia Mejia, individually, Plaintiff, -againstDavid Laffer, Melinda Brady, Suffolk County Police Departinent, Stan Xuhui Li, Eric Jacobson, Eric JiicObSOn, M.D., P.C., Mark C. Kaufman and Family Medical Practice of Bay Shore, P.C., Defendants. -~ Index No.: 10778/2012 AttomedParties [See Rider Annexed1 Motion Sequence No.: 003; M0T.D Motion Date: 9/17/12 Submitted: 12/12/12 Motion Sequence No.: 004; XM0T.D Motion Date: 9/17/12 Submitted: 12/12/12 Motion Seauence No.: 005; XM0T.D Motion Date: 10/24/12 Submitted: 12/12/12 Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 3 1 read upon this motion and cross motion for ,ai1 order dismissing the complaint and the cross-motion for leave to amend: Notice of Motion and suppori ing papers, 1 - 4; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers, 5 - 1 1 ; 12 - 20; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers, 21 - 22; 23 - 24; 25 - 26; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers, 27 - 28; 29 - 3 1; it is ORDERED that the motion (#003) by defendant Stan X. Li, M.D., sued in this action as Stan Suliui Li, M.D., (Dr. Li), for an order dismissing the verified complaint is granted only to tlie extent that pl,unti ff's claims for recovery in medical malpractice are dismissed, and such motion is o t I i ~ ' r ~ v idenied; and it I S further se ORDERED that tlie cross-motion (#004) by defendant, Family Medical Care of Bay Shore, P.C ., sl.~edin this action as Faiiiily Medical Practice of Bay Shore, P.C. (Family Medical), for an order dismissins the complaint and all cross-claims against it is denied; and it is further [* 2] Meiia v. Laffer. et al. Index No.: 1077812012 Page 2 ORDERED that the separate cross-motion (#005) by plaintiff, Antonia Mejia, as the Administratrix oftlie Estate of Jennifer Mejia, deceased, and Aiitonia Mejia, individually, is granted to the ex tent it seeks an order granting leave to file and serve an amended complaint to add a cause of action for recovery under General Obligations Law 3 1 1-1 03; and it is fi-ther ORDERED that such crossmotion by plaintiff is also granted to the extent it seeks an order awarding a default judgment against defendants David Laffer and Melinda Brady, and any further proceedings for the assessment of damages and entry of judgment against said defendants are deferred uiiti I such time as the claims against the non-defaulting defendants are disposed of, whether by trial or other means, and in all other respects the cross-motion by plaintiff is denied. This action arises out of the horrific murders which occurred on June 19,2011, when Davild Laffer shot and killed four people while robbing the Haven Drugs pharmacy in Medford, New York:. Defendant Melinda Brady was an accomplice with Laffer in the crimes. One of the victims was plaintiffs decedent Jennifer Mejia, who was working in the pharmacy. Laffer was arrested, charged and ultimately convicted on his plea of guilty to robbery and murder in the first degree. He is currently serving four consecutive life sentences. Defendant Melinda Brady was also arrested, charged and convicted in connection with the incident. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the alleged conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death of decedent Mejia. Recovery is sought against movant Dr. Li upon allegations that he prescribed to defendants Laffer and Brady an excessive number of pain medications known to be addictive without detcrniiiiing whether they were receiving similar prescriptions from other sources. It is also alleged that the doctor knew or should have known that persons addicted to prescription pain medications are prone to commit crimes in an effort to obtain drugs. In addition, plaintiff claims that the cross11iov;intFamily Medical is, vicariously liable for the alleged actions of its employee, Mark Kaufmani, in prescribing an excessive number of addictive pain medications. On a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must deteriiiii le whether, accepting as true the factual averments of the complaint and granting plaintiffs e\ ery favorable inference which may be drawn from the pleading, plaintiffs can succeed upon any reasonal-llc view of the facts stated (Bnrtlett v Kolmer, 228 AD2d 532, 644 NYS2d 550 [2d Dept 19961).I n considering a case in which the facts clearly elicit a visceral response, and [tlhe human desire that there should be some recovery for this tragedy is understandable (Eisenzatz v State qf New Y w k , 70 NY2d 175, 185,5 1 1 NE2d 1128,5 18 NYS2d 608 [ 19871) it has been recognized that emotion can not govern the determination of legal liability (see Fox v Marshall, 88 AD3d 13 1, 135, 92s NYS2d 3 17 [2d Dept 201 11). A duty of reasonable care owed by a tortfeasor to a plaintiff is elemental to any recovery in negligence (Fox v Marsliall, sirpvn at 88 AD3d 135, citing Piilka v Edelmnrz, 40 NY2d 781, 358 NE2d 1 ( 1 19, 300 NYS2d 393 [ 19761). The question of whether a defendant owes a duty of care to f anothcr pcrson is a question of law for the court (Citera v Courzty o Suffolk, 95 AD3d 1255, 1258, 945 h YS2d 375 [2d Dept 20121). While generally there is no duty to control the conduct of third [* 3] JJejia v. l A f e r , et a]. lndeu n o . : 1077812012 Page 3 persons to prevent them from causing injury to others, the Court of Appeals has recognized that there IS a duty to control the conduct of others where there is a special relationship, such as a relationship between defendant and a third person whose actions expose plaintiff to harm such as would require the defhidaiit to attempt to control the third person s conduct, or a relationship between the defendait and plaintiff requiring defendant to protect the plaintiff froin the conduct ofothers (Citera 1) Couiity of Sziffolk, szipiw at 95 AD3d 1259, citing Purdy v Public Administrator of County o f Westchester, 72 NY2d 1. 526 NE2d 4, 530 NYS2d 5 13). Applying these principles, the Appellate Division, Secoiid Department, has found that an outpatient psychiatric treatment facility did not have the autliority or ability to exercise control over a patient s conduct so as to give rise to a duty lo protect the decedent (ser. Citera v County of Sziffolk, supra, 95 AD3d 1255), but a residential substaiicc abuse and mental health facility which gave a patient a pass to leave the facility may owe a duty in negligence to protect the public where it had knowledge that the patient could be a danger to hrmsslf and others (see Fox v Marshall, 88 AD3d 131, 928 NYS2d 317 [2d Dept 201 11). The Courts of this state have been wary of expanding the obligation of duty but have detemiined that the issue must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. [Jludicial resistance to the expansion of duty grows out of practical concerns both about potentially limitless liability and about the unfairness of imposing liability for the acts of another. A duty may arise, however, where there is a I elat ioiiship either between defendant and a third-person tortfeasor that encompasses defendant s actual control of the third person s actions or between defendant and plaintiff that requires defendant to protect plaintiff from the conduct of others ( Z m e v Corbett, 82 AD3d 1603, 161 1,919 NYS2d 625 [4 Dept 201 11, quoting Haiiziltoiz vBeretta U.S.A. Cory., 96 NY2d at 233, 750 NE2d 1055. 727 NYS2d 7 [2001]). Applying the foregoing principles, in numerous cases the courts have held that a medical prokidel- did not have a duty to the general public to control the conduct of a patient and was not liable fbr failure to intervene to protect others (see, e.g., Purdy v Public Adnziizistrator o f t h e Cozuzty qf Westclzester, 72 NY1, 526 NE2d 4, 530 NYS2d 513 [ 19881). Here, the allegations agai tist defendant doctors Li, Jacobson and Kaufman include claims that each affirmatively contributed to the addiction of Laffer and Brady which allegedly motivated their murderous activities. Put another way, and viewing the allegations ofthe complaint and the proposed amended complaint 111 a light most favorable to plaintiff, it appears that plaintiffclaims that the doctors created a risk of harm to the general public by providing the means tlirough which Laffer and Brady becan-le addicted and dcpendent upon prescription medications, and that the doctors knew or should ha\ e known t Iiat there was a ri SIC that Laffer and Brady would engage in criminal conduct in a desperal e need to feed their addictions. Tli~ts, this case, the duty to the community at large does not arise in through an obligation to control the actions of Laffer and Brady. Rather, the duty may arise tlirough an ob1iL:ation to refrain froin over-prescribing addictive drugs in an irresponsible and potentially ~i-iminal manner. It may be found that the medical providers breached the duty to the general public md, more particularly, to the plaintiffs decedent, through the irresponsible dispensiiig of controlled substaiices to addicts and the reckless disregard for the consequences of that addictioii (see Williams v Beeim;ller, Iiic., __ AD3d , 952 NYS2d 333 [4 Dept 20121). [* 4] Mejia v,,Laffer, et al. Index Xo.: 10778/2012 Page 4 The license to write prescriptions carries with it important responsibilities. Here, plaintiff claims that each of the doctors, including movant Dr. Li, negligently prescribed controlled substanzes to Laffer and Brady without taking necessary precautions. The claims in this case are distingi.is1iable froin those cases in which a medical provider is alleged to have failed to perceive a risk of danger and failed to exercise control to prevent harm to others. Instead, plaintiff in this case contends that Dr. Li helped to create the danger by feeding Laffer and Brady s addictions. ThLe distinction is significant. In the opinion of this Court, under certain factual circumstances there exists a duty to the general public not to supply prescriptions to maintain an addict or habitual user of controlled substances. A medical provider may owe a duty to protect the public from the actions of a drug addict and he may be found to have breached that duty if lie creates or maintains the addiction through his own egregious conduct. At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff should ble afforded the opportunity to proceed against Dr. Li to explore through appropriate discovery proceedings tlie level of his alleged involvement, if any, in Laffer and Brady s addictions and whether Dr. Li knew or had reason to know that Laffer and Brady presented a risk of harm to themselves or others. Accordingly, the motion for dismissal of the complaint against Dr. Li is denied. Plaintiff also claims that the defendant Mark Kaufmaii, and agent and employee of defendant Fami I y ]\/I edical, negligently prescribed addictive medications to defendants Laffer and Brady. It is tiirther alleged that Dr. Kaufman was acting on behalf of Family Medical, and that Family Medical may be held vicariously liable for Dr. Kaufman s acts. The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a iiiastei vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of his cmployncnt (Riviello v Waldrorz, 47 NY2d 297, 302, 391 NE2d 1278, 418 NYS2d 300 [1979]). I n view of this Court s determination that a medical provider owes a duty to responsibly prescribe addictive medications and that he may, under certain factual situations, be held liable for injuries that occur as a result of a breach of that duty, dismissal of plaintiffs claims and cross-claims against Family Medical is not warranted. The claims asserted by the plaintiff for recovery in medical malpractice, however, must fail. I he ;ibsence of a doctor/patient relationship between plaintiffs decedent and defendants precludes a cause ofaction based on medical malpractice (see Fox vMavslzaZ1, 88 AD3d 131, 135,928 NYS2id 3 17 I2d Dept 201 11). Nor can plaintiffs causes of action be sustained if, as plaintiff urges, they were viewed as claims for recovery for negligent entrustment. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims for rcco\:erj in medical malpractice against defendants Li and Family Medical Practice of Bay Shorc, P.C., arc dismissed. I n considering whether the plaintiff can succeed on a claim to recover under General Obligations Law Q 1 1-103 this Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff tlie beiicfit of every possible favorable inference (see McHeizry v Lawrence, 66 AD3d 050, 8% NYS2d 492 [2d Dept 20091). It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants negligently prcsc ribed drugs to addicts Laffer and Brady, and that Laffer and Brady committed their crimes while they ber re addicted to the drugs. It IS also claimed that the allegedly excessive prescribing of drugs behavior. Such well 1s Laffer s and Ekady s addictions were direct causes of their cr~niinal [* 5] 51eiia v. Laffer, et al. Index No.: 10778/2012 Page 5 allegations, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are sufficient to state a claim for rec0vcr.y under General Obligatioiis Law $1 1-103. In contrast, while Public Health Law 53350 proliibits the prescribing, administering or dispensing of controlled substances to addicts or habitual users thereof, it does not create a private right to recovery in the event such prohibition is violated. Accordingly, plaintiff may not maintain a cause of action for recovery under Public Health La& fi33 5 0. HON. WILLIAM B. REBOLINI, J.S.C. FINAL DISPOSITION X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION [* 6] RIDER Attoiiiev for Plaintiff: C3yiiii Mercep and Purcell. LLP North C ouiitry Road P O Box 712 Smiy Brook, N Y 1 1790 Defend ;&: David L,affer c/o Clinton Correctional Facility 1 156 Route 374, P.O. Box 2000 Daimeiiiora, N Y 1292912000 Melinda Brady c/o Bedford Correctional Facility 247 Harris Road Bedford Hills. NY 10507-.2400 Attoiiievs for Defendant Suffolk County Police Department: Dennis Cohen, Suffolk County Attorney By: Susan Flynn, Assistant County Attorney H. L,ee Dennis Building 100 Velerans Memorial Highway llauppauge, NY 1 1 788 Attoiiiey for Defendant S1.m Xuhui Li: Belair & Evans, LLP 61 Broadway New Yorlc NY 10006 Attorney for Defendant Eric Jacobson, M.D. and Eric Jacobson, M.D., P.C.: Callan, Koster, Brady & Ehennaii, LLP One Wall Street New Yoi-k, N Y 10004 Attornev ror Mark C. Kauhian, M.D : L~ibell Rosen 22 6400 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 101 Syossct. N Y 11791 c Attoi-ncv Ibr Defendant Fnmily Medical Care of Bay Shore, P C s/h/,i Family Medical Practice of Bay Shore, P C: (Jalballnl LYC Scher, I C 432 1 JiIt A \ cnuc South Ye\\. YOII\, N\r I001 6-80 13 c Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
