Mullen v Wishner

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Mullen v Wishner 2017 NY Slip Op 31675(U) August 8, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 08-28687 Judge: Joseph Farneti Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] con SHOR I HIRM ORl>l·R INDEX No. 08-28687 CAL. No. 16-017750T SUPREME COURT- ST/\TE OF NEW YORK L/\.S. PART 37 - SUFfOLK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPII FARNETI Acting Justice Supreme Court MOTI ON DATE 3-16-17 ADJ. D/\TE 3-16-17 Mot. Seq. # 0 14 - MotD ---------------------------------------------------------------X G RUENBERG, KELLY & DELLA Attorney for Plaintiff 700 Koehler A venue Ronkonkoma, New York 11779 ALLISON MULLEN. Plaintiff, GEISLER & MARANO, LLP Attorney fo r Defendant Wishner 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd. Garden City, New York 11530 - against - STEVEN G. WlSHNER and HUNTINGTO MEDICAL GROUP, ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRARA & WOLF LLP Attorney for Defendant Huntington Med. Group 3 Dakota Drive, Suite 300 Lake Success, New York 11042 Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( Upon the following papers numbered I to 28 read on this motion for summary judgment and to correct pleading; Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause and supporting papers I · 15 : Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers_: Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 19 - 25 : Repl ying Affidavits and supporting papers 26 - 28 : Other atlidavit in support 16 - 18; it is, ORDERED that the motion by the defendant Huntington Medical Group for, among other things, an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3212. &>ranting summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted to the extent that the second and third causes of action arc dismissed , and the language in the first cause of action alleging a violation of the Human Rights Law is stricken, and is otherwise denied. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover, among other things, for personal injuries arising out of alleged medical malpractice and civil assault when the defendant Steven G. Wishner ("Wishner") [* 2] :-vlulkn \ \.\ i~hnl..'r in<.il..'~ \.o. ll~-28()8/ alkgcdl: improp1.:rl: and inappnipria11.:I: pcrrorn11..·d a ph,:. sical <.:\itlllinalion or h1..T. II is undi~pllil..'d that \\ j,hnn \\as :111 1:111plo:l..'1..' ofth1..· ddi:11da11t I l11nting1011 \kdical (rroup ( .. 11\l(i.. J at th<.: tim<.:. and that lhl..' piJ_\sic<.d <.:\;1111i11ati1111 l111ih. plai.:c dl iiJ1: orliLc:-. o!" l l\J(i. 1111..· p!.ti!Hil'J i.tlkgl.'S that\\ lShlll'r made u1rncl..'l..'ssar_:.. llll\\antt.:d and impropl..'r contact \\ith h1..·r in a mannt:r that \\ould not IHI\ I..' on:urrl..'d Jurinµ a prnp-:r 1..•...,;ami11a1io11. and that hi..' had hl..'r stand 011 a 1'1.1oh1ool compkt<.:I.' nakl..'d for li,·c t1l t<.:n n1inutl..'s \\hik spl..'ahing lo hl..'r. The plainti ff commcncl..'d this at:tinn b,:. the liling of a summons and complaint dat<.:d Jul,:. 11. 2008. "hich conlainl..'d thrcl..' causes or action. Thercalkr. thl..' plaimiff mo\c<l to mm·nd the complaint lo add four additional causl..'s or action. \Vislmt:r cross-mon:<l. among other things. to dismiss the complaint as tim<.:-harn:d. and l IM< i cross-mon:d for summary judgment dismissing. the c.:nn1plai11t. By< )rdcr <lated October I>. 2011. this ( 'ourt granted the plainti rr s motion. grant<.:d \\'ishner-" s <.:rnss mot ion on!: t<1 the cxt<.:nt or Jismissing the cause of action for ci\ ii assault in till' original complaint as u111imd). and denied 11.IVl( ;·s cross motion as procedurally dct'cc.:ti\·e bl..'cause it l~1 i kd to inc.:luck rnpics or all or the pleadings. In h~r am<.:nded complaint. lhc plaintiff sets rorth sl..'vcn causes of action. In hl..'r lirst cause or action. sounding in negligence. gross negligence. and medical malprac.:ti<.:e. the plaintiff alleges. among other things. that I l v1(i had prior knov.-ledg.<.: ofWishncr.-s ··dangerous propl..'nsitics:· and that lhe defendants· ··disparate treatment .. of the plaintiff,·iolat<.:d the >Jc" York Slate lluman Rights Lm\. In h<.:r second cause of action. the plain tiff repeats her allegations that the dclcndants violated the ~kw York Stat\.' 1luman Rights I.aw. In her third cause.> ol' action. the plaintiff sc.:ts forth a daim for civil assault. In her fourth. fifth and sixth causes of action. the plaintilTrcspcctin:ly sets forth daims for negligent training. hiring and retention against 1IM(i. In her seventh cause or action. the plaintiff alleges that I IMCi is liable hen:in under the doctrine of respondeat supl..'rinr. The se rvice of an amended complaint eliminates the complaint that it \vas intended 10 supersede. the previous pleading. has no effect. and th<.: litigation proceeds us if the pre' ious <.:om plaint had never heen served (see l/ealtlu:are /.Q., LLC v. Tmi Cl11111g Cluw. 11 8 J\D3d 98. 986 NY S2d 41 J lst Dept 10 141: Stella vStella. 9'2 /\D2d 589. 459 NYS2d 478 j:?d Dept I 983 j). Thus. all references herein arc to the plaintitrs amended complaint. /\Iler the completion of' discovery. 1IM(I now 1110v<.:s for s ummary judgment dismissing tht.: s .:cond ~:!~!-=t nf :11.·1 im~. !nr ..:qmmary judgment nr di..,mi ""al purc.;11rn1l to C Pl R 3~ I I or the rlainti IT s thir<l. fourth. lilih. sixth. and se\enth causes of action. and for an ()rder .. striking all supl..'rfluous lanuuaue.. from the 11lai nt i rr s first cause 0 r action. ·1he essence of 11 MG. s c.:onll..'ntions l"C!lard inu dismissal pursuant lo CPI K 3.211 arc hast.:d on the arguments that the plainti IT has foilt:d to state caus1.:s or a<.:tion. lkcausc issrn: has hc<.:n jnined. and a motion to dismiss fcir foilure ttl state a cause of action is onl.! of the permissihle grounds for a post-ans\\l..'r motion to dismiss (see CPl.R >211 jcj). this motion ~hou lc.1 he tkcmcd 10 have been hn,ught en tirely under CPLR 3211. Whenever a wurt ekcts to treat '11d1 an 1.'IT01Wo11"I.' labeled motion as a motion ((.)r sumrnar~ judgment. it must provide ..adequat1..' notice .. to the parties (CPLR 3211 Ic !) unless it appears from thl..' parties· papers that they delihcratd_:. arl..' charting a summary judgmt.:nt course by layi ng bare their proof (.\t'e Rich v Le_f1w1•i1s. 5(> Y2d 276. -+52 i\'YS.2d I I 1<>821: Sc'1 11/t<. 1• E'ltate <~(Sloa 11 . 20 AD3d 520. 799 YS2d 2-+6 J2d Dept .2005J). I kr<.:. upon n.'\' JI..'\\ of the papl'rs. the Coun finds that I IM(i has <.:!curl~ d1urtcu a ~umm<:tr.' ju<lgment t:l>Ursc . 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ [* 3] \lulkn ' \\'ishm:r i11dc'\ '\.u. Oi-i-.::81i87 Pa~L· ' th<it 11\J( i·s nuti<.:1..' o!" llllllion spccifieall) <.krnand..., "aid relil'I: :1nd that it ll<IO.., . . uh111i tkd e'\te11si\l~ ducu111e11wr: c\ idenn· ;1 11d •• l'fida' its in supplir\ tll' it:-. p1>si tion (see ,!.!.<'ll<'ralh' l/arris 1· /la/lherf.:. 1(i \I) Id 857. 828 :\YS2d 57 1J i~J l kpt ::007 i ). I '11lkr the"L' ~i1u1111sl•111L ...'"· th1.· ClHlri. in dc:1crmini11g this motinn. i" free lo appl: the standard applicable to summar: jw.l~mc1ll nwtions "iLhout affording the parties notice or ib i11trntio11 to do so(.\'('(' Mi'11o l'llll I ' Grozm •u . T2 l'\Y2d :)()(). 514 . ' YS2d 65(l I 19881: Douka.\· 1' Do11A11.\. 47 :\D.kl 753. 84<J '\. YS.2d <iS<i 12<.I Dept 2008jJ. 111 support of its motion. I IV!(i submits :i cop: ol"the complaint and its :tnS\\l'L but foils to submit Vv'ishner"s ans\\ er. lniliall:. rnunse l for the plaintiff contends that 1IM< i ·s 111otion IC.>r sumnwr: judgment must he tknied as prn<.:<.:Jurall) <ll'kcti\'l.!. In response. I IMCi suh111its Wishncr"s ansWL'r in its n.:pl: papers. CPL!~ 200 I p<..:rmils a court. at any stage oLm act ion. to ··disr<.:gard a part{ s mistake. omission. ddcc.:t. or irregularity ir a substantial right or a party is not pr<:ju<lict:c.J:· Thus. it has been hdd that ~here the record is sufficiently complete. anc.J then.: is no proof that a substantial rig.ht or a part) has h<..:c11 impaired h: tht.: foilun: of a movant to submit <.:opi<..:s of the pleadings. that a c.:ourt may ac.JJrt.:ss th<.: mc:rits or th<.: motion ( Lo11g l.'i. Pi11e Barre11s S oq., lite. 1 Cou11~r of Suffolk. I 22 /\D3d 688. 9C)(i ~ YS2<l 162 I2d I kpt 20 l -l I: .\ee also A valo11 Gardens Relwhilitatio11 & I l ealtl1 Care C tr., LLC 1• Mon e/lo 97/\D3d 611. 9-l8 NYS2d 377 !2d lkpt 2012p. 11<.:rc. no substantial rig.ht of the plaintiff is prejuc.Jked as all of the pleadings \\Cr<.: submitted anti served upon all parties in the motion mack by I IM(i. and the rl'rnrd is more than su ffi ciently compl<.:te. 1 In support or its motion. I !MCI also submits the artirmation of its attorn<.:y, a copy of the Court"s (>rder <lated Octob<:r 13. 20 I I. the plain ti 1rs hi lI of particulars. and the transcripts n r the deposition testimony of Lhc plaintiff and l\\o non party witnesses. The depositions or thc plaintiff and the nonparty witncss<.:s arc unsigned. and FI MG has foiled to submit proof that the transcripts were forwarded to the witnesses for their revicv. (see CPLR 3116 lal). Under the circumstances, the deposition testimony or th<.: nonparty witn<.:sses is not in admiss ible rorm (see Marmer 1• IF USA Express, Inc.. 73 /\D3d 868. 899 YS2d 88412d Dept 20101: Martinez v 123-16 liberty A i·e. Real~)' Corp., 47 /\D3d 901, 850 YS2<l 201 12d Dept 20081: 1 c D011ald v Mauss . 38 ;\ D3d 727. 832 NYS2c.J 291 12d D<:pt 2007!). H I lowevcr. the plai nt ifrs deposition transcript may he considered hcr<.: in as the parties have not rnis<.:d any chalknges to its aeeuracy (Rodriguez 1· Ryder Tmck, Ju e.. 91 J\D3d 935. 93 7 NYS2d (i02 12d Dept 20121: Zalot 1 •Zieha. 81/\D3d935. 917 1 YS2d 28512c.J Dept 201 11). t'1'll 1°" 'lf)()I.) j-.•r 1")"'lh'l'l"'*()J""1. •'" 1"1'•'( '111 11l"nd,,d ''-'\" t ' • •I.. .. .., C <:t •"- '-' •• •"-••'--•'>P ..,• . '\. surg<.:ry anti informed her that sh<.: n<.:<.:<kd a ph}sical examination. that sh<.: calkd 1IM(i and was gi\en an appointment for Octohcr 9. 2006. and that she did nnt !..now which physician she would he se<..:ing. that da::. 'ihe statl'd that '"hen sh<.: mrived at I IM <i for her ar poi ntmcn t. she lill<.:d out soll1L' papcrwnrk and a woman calkd h<..:r name and kd her to an examinat ion room. that the \-Vo111a11 told ht.:r to put 0 11 a rube. and that she hdicves that th<.: \\Oman told her to r<..:lllO\'l.'. hcr brn and pa nties. She indicated that. wht:n \\'ishn<..:r enter<..:d the room. she told him that she \\'HS there ·just l(H· a routine physical. I have an l.'.Yl' surger: coming up :md I ne<.:d a physical.·· rhe plaintiff rurther testified that Wi'\hnn statt:d .. "c·re going to Jo a breast <.:.'mm:· that \Vishner opened her robe and .. began to lccl around 111) chest.·· and that Wislrncr .. then continued to li.:d UO\\ n m;. abdomen. m: stomach <.km n close lo 111;. pubic bone ... an inch or l\\O ab()\'C her genitals. She indicated that \\ ' ishner then asked her to 'iland up and disrobe. th<it ht.: askt:d her lo stand on a stool. anJ that he sat in a c.:orn<..:r ol" thl· cxamination room talking to her for live • \ • 1' •v \J'-1 ' ' '• t l: ' 'l' 4. ll""l • I '""S: l \ I J. '\. }><' ')'"I." l;I 1·1•\'' -' ''Sll· l~"d 1'-" t IU la I • l"' I\. • II - \ . • 1';,.., [* 4] \lulk11' \\ ishni:r lmk:-- \.\\ . llX- 21-ihX / Pagl' -l mintttl''> Sl11.· '>tilted tlwt -;II.: 111ld \\'ishn~:r that -;hi: kit \1..Ty uni:nml.o rtahk at thl' time. that \\ ishncr \\as ·-.m.:atinµ pr11r·11st.:I: :·and that "in th.: 111id-;t (Ir llll' stand inµ th1.:r1: w111pktl'I: naked. there \\ ;t~ a i-.110Li al till' d<h ir... or 11.:n I hl' plainti ff I'urthi.:r ll'~tilil'd that Wishnl'r ll'apl'd out ul'his diair and "grabbed the door... that he had a liw. tl'n or I:' -;1..·co11J com·l'rsation \\ith a \\oman at thl' door. and that Ill· thi:n sat hack dcmn and. \\ hik she " ·as still -;tanding on thl' stool. hlld her that there is a "Ill'\\ t:pe or cancer out and that it's \l'r: important that :ou µ.:t lcSLL'd 1(\1· it." She stated that Wishner then asked ht.:r if'sht.: \\anted to he tested rnr the cancc..:r. that she..: said : es. and that he said "okay. turn around and put ~our hands on the I i.:xamination 1 tahk and bend O\'l.;r.'· Shl' indicated that she told Wishncr that she \Vas "Wry uncornfonahk " :ith this:· that Wish111.:r caml' over to her and "spread my butt checks and th.:n closed them ... anti that be thcn said "okuy. your exam is done. you c.1011 · t have rnncer. you Ican I put your robe back on:· The plaintiff further testified that she put on her rohc. c.:hangcd into hl'r dothes and ldi I IM< i. that she Jid not rc..:port a11) thing to 11 M< i. anJ that she spoke \\ ith her parcllls and a l'ricnd v. ho is a nurs<.: about her cxpcricm.:c. She indicated that her friend said the examination did not sound .. normar· and she should pmhahly r1:port \\ ishnc..:r. and that she \\!'Ole a letter to the Oniel' of Professional Medical Conduct r·OPMC"} dated Ma~ I. 20 I 0. She statec.1 that she later had a cnnfcrrncc cal I ·with l\\ o representatives from OJ>MC. and that she <lid not ha\'e any rurthcr conversations nr correspondence ""ith that onice alkr said conversation. The Court now turns to the hranchcs of I IMO' s motion for summary judgment which seek to dismiss the plaintiffs s.:cond an<l third causes of action. In his affirmation in support of the motion. counsel for 11 M( i contends that the plain ti Ir s complaint. amp Ii lied by her hi II of particulars, docs not allege that she was denied any services. privileges or accommodations ofkred h) I!MG. or any other facts necessary 10 estahlish a cause of action for violation ol'lluman Rights Law§ 296 (1). Counsel for I IMG further contends that the plaintilrs third cause of uction fo r civil assault is time-barred as the plaintiff foiled to c.:ommcncc this action within the one-year ti1rn: period set forth in CPLR 215 (3) and. in any eve;:nt. the plainti tr s testimony cstabl ishcs that was not placed in "apprehension or an ·immediate lcar of harm· .. necessary to maintain said cause or action. The complaint sets forth a single allegation of "olknsi,·e. un-consentcd to hoc.lily conlaeC by \Vishncr. The hill or particulars alleges that I IMCi "improperly performed a physical examination ... mndc unnc:.:css;:;-::. t:nwantcd. and improper contm:! "ith plaintiff." I IMC; hac.; l'"tahli,hcd it" 11rimo fade• entitlement to summary j u<lgmenl <lismissi ng the second cause of action as the plai nti tr s tcstimon) docs not indicate that there \.\ as any violation of the I luman Rights Lav:. In addition. I IMCI has established its 1wimu /(1cie c..:ntitkmcnt to summary judgment dismissing the third cause nr action herein. In the Order dated October I J. ::w 11. this Court dismissed said cause t)I' action in the original complaint as untiml'ly pursuant to Wishnc1"s cross motion. II is undisputed that this incident occurred on October 9. 200(). and this action " ·as commenced on or artcr July 11. ~008. wdl alkr the one-year statute or limitati<ins provided in CPLR 21:' ( ~ ). Thal is. the L"<lll"l' ol'artion filrci,·il a;-;-;ault is untiml'i~ to both Jclcndants. 'vlorcc)\·cr. the plaintiff has foi kd lo addrcss the argumt.:nls proffered b) 11 1( i rcgnrdi ng her second and third causes or action in her opposition and. thus. has conceded that she docs not hm c causes or action fo r violation or the I luman Rights I ,a\\' or for ci,·il assault (see McJ\'amee Ctm str. Corp. 1 Ci~r <~f New 1 [* 5] \1ulkn' \\'ishncr I nde' ;'\ ll. OX-2 XhX 7 Ro('helle. 2'> :\l).'hl ~ ....~. Xl7 \'YS 2J 2(JS 12d lkpt 200C>j : Weltle111· Rfrera. 'l OI ,\D2d ~n-L 75.+ . Y'l 2d (1l)8 I hi lkpl 20(J' I) . .\ccnnli11gl: . the plainti ir s S1.'Clllld and third cauo.;1.·:-. action arc dismiso.;(.'.(J or I he Courl fl()\\ It ll'llS to I he branches 0 r 11 \1( j . '> motion for sum mar: i udg.ment \\hi ch SL'L'I-. lO di -;mis-; the plaintifr" fuurth. lillh and si:-.th cause" of' action ror negligrnt training. hiring and n:tcntilll1. In hi-; affirmation. wun:-.d for I IM(i slates that .. lilt is \\t•ll established that. in general. no cau:-.c of action ma: pn>et.>1.·d againo.;t an cmplo~ er undcr the theor: or nqdigcnt hiring. n.:tention or supcn is ion \\hen said employer \\ould he responsible under a thcor: of r<'.'1'01ulL't1! superior . Neiger,._Cit~ ol'Nc\\ York. T2 /\ . D.~d. ()()1 (2d Dept. 2010) ...... I hat is. that the plaintiff cannot maintain these causes ol' acti~in because her seventh cause oLKtion seeks to hold I !MG liable under the doctrine of rcspondeat superior. Counsel for I !MCI notes that then: is an o:ception tn the: general rule where the plaintiff st:l..'1-.s punitive damages. provided that said claim is meritorious. and he asserts that "as a matter or la"" the conduct and chxisions of I lf\tl(i cannlH he said to hu,·e hcen so red.less or wanton as to cvincc a moral culpahility and rct:l-.k:-.s disregard ,,arranting thl..' imposit ion of puniti,·e damages." rlrns. he claims. the plaimiff cannot estahlish a basis for the "Yer: limited exception .. lo the gcnl..'ral rule. and the respecli,·e t:auses or action should he dismissed. Initially. the contentions or counsel for I IMO an: based on his heliel'that the plaintiff has fo iled to set fo11h factual allcµations in the pleadings sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. In addition, counsel concedes that his client conducted an investigation into a complaint sim ilar to that of the plaintiff made against Wishner prior to this incident. llowcvcr. counsel argues that IIMG acted reasonably in retaining Wishm.:r as an employee afier said i1wcstigation. Counsel's lirst contention i:-. rej ected as the argument is not <lispositi\'C \\'hen <lctcnnining a motion for summary judgment. The proponent or a summary judgment motion must make a prinw fi.tCie showing o f rnlitlcmcnt to judgment as a matter oflaw. tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue or fact (see A lvarez 1• Prospect Hospital, 68 1Y2d :no. 508 NYS2d 9n I 1986 j: Wi11egrad '' New York U11fr. Med. Ctr.. 64 NY::!d 851 . .f87 'YS2d ] 16 ! 1985 j). In add iti on. it is wdl-settlcd that the determination whether to award punitive Jamages is a matter \\.ithin the sound discretion of the trier of fact (see Nardelli,, Stamberg. 44 NY2d 500. -W6 1 YS2d 443 119781: Solis-Vic1111a I' Notias. 71 /\DJd 868. 898 YS2d 45 l2d Dept 20101). I !MG has failed to establish as a matter of la'' that its conduct \.Vas such that the trier or fact could not lin<l its actions ninrally l'lt!rnhk I IM(i ha' no1 q1hmitte<l admi.,.,ihlc evidence rcgardirn.! its invcstigation into the prior complaint. any documentation n.:garding said investigation. its hiring. nr its training or Wishncr. or what actions it lt'Ok -with l'l..'gard to training or ()VCrsight nr its employees hctv.:een thl..' time of the prior incident rel~rn.:d to by coun.sd for l l:V!Ci and this int:idcnt. The foilurt: to make a ;>ri111u.facie showing ot' t:ntitlcmt:nt to summa ry judgment requires u denial or the motion. rt:ga rdlcss or the surticicncy or the opposing papers (see AIMre: ,, Prospect Jlosp.. .\llf>/'£1: Wi11el(ratl 1· New York (/11fr. Med. Or.. supm: Martine~ 1· 123- 16 liber~1 · ,•fre. Rea/~J' Corp .. 47 /\D3d 901. 850 YS2<l ~OJ 12d Dept 2008!}. According!~. the branches ofl l\,1<i's motion for summar: judgment \\·hich sec!-. tn dismiss th~ plaintilTs fourth. liflh. and sixth causc of action art: dcnied. I l:vtC's sole contl..'ntion in seeking summary judgment dismissing th~ plaintilf s seventh caust· nr act ion is that the claim is duplicatiw of the plaintil'rs lirst t:ausc or action. /\s s~t li)l'th above. the [* 6] ,. Wislrnn lrH.k.\ \:o. llX-2X<>X 7 Page (i \~ulkn plaintirr" lirst cause (lf action allq!<.:S. <UlH>ng oth<.:r things. that Wishn<.:r and 11\I< i \\er<.: gro-;sl: n<.:glig<.:nl in tr<.:atin~ th<.: pl.iintiff. I hl' plaintirrs s<.:\l'tllh cau...;<.: of action alleges. in <.:-.-..enc<.:. that 11~1<.i is' ic.:ariousl) liabk to thl..' piainti If ba:-.l·d llll the lll'gligcnc.:c l>r \\'i...,hn<.:r. It i...; ''l..'H-.-.,<.:ttkd that l..'mplo)a-.. an.: 'icariousl: liahk for thl..' lnrls llrthl'ir <.:mplo:el..'s untkr till' theory ol'r<.:spond<.:at supe rior if' th<.: acts \\'ere rnmmilll..'d \\hik the emplo)<.:<.: ''as acting" ithin th<.: scope or his or h<.:r <.:mpln~ m<.:nt and in f'urthl'ranc<.: or th<.: <.:mplo) <.:r" s husi111.:ss (.we Rfriello 1· Waldro11 . -n ~ Y2d 297. -l 18 . YS2d .)(}(J f 1979 f: Xi11 Tang Wu 1· Ng. 70 l\D3d 818. 89-l l\ YS2<l 1-t I I2d Di..:pt 20 IO[: Carnegie ,. .I.I'. Philip.\', luc., 28 J\D3d 599. 81) 'YS2d I 07 j 2d Ikpt 200(> I). I llm·i :,w. th<.: empluyer '"i II b<.:ar no 'icarious Iiahi lily \\her<.: tlit· cmplo:ec <.:{ltlllniui:d the tnrt for personal moti\cs unrelated to the funhcranc<.: of the empl<>y<.:r·s business (.\l'<' W/Jite 1• Alko11tay11i. 18 J\D3d 5.+0. 79.+, YS2d 667f2d lkpl 2005[: Brancato "Dee & /)t!e Punk. 29Cl /\l)'.2d 518. 7-t :) NYS'.2d 564 [2d Dept 20021). I kre. I !MG has foikd to cstahlish as a matter or l<l\\.. that the trier of foct could dd<.:rmim:. for cxan1pk. that Wishncr wns acting l(.>r personal motives und that 11 M( i ,._·as gross!) neglig<.:nt in its treatment or th<.: plainti ll. That is. there arc issues of fact requiring a trial or this action. and the plaintiffs sc\ enth cause or action is not duplicati' c or hi:r lirst cause or action a'i a matter or I<\\\. J\ccordingly. the branch or I IM( i · s motion for summary judgment which seeks to dismiss th<.: plainti tr s seventh cause or act ion is denied. Final!;. it is determined that I IMG's rcqu<.:st to strik<.: the plaintitrs allegation in her fir!'>t cause or act ion r<.:garding an alleged violation of the Human Rights Law should hi: grnnt<.:d under the circumstances. ~at11.:rs that arc unnecessary to the viability of a cause action and would cause undue prejudice to a defendant should be stricken from the pleading or bill of particulars (set! CPLR 301~ lbl: Irving,, Four Seasons Nursing and Rehabilitation Ctr.. 121 J\D3d I O-t6. 995 YS2d 184 j::!d Ocpt 2014 ]: Kinzer v Bederman. 59 l\D3d 496, 873 NYS2d 692 l2d Dept 2009 [). In light of the determination to dismiss the plaintiffs second caus<.: of action alleging a violation of the lluman Rights La\\ herein. the aforcsai<l languagc is superfluous. unn<.:ccssary to said tirst cause or action. and its inclusion in the complaint is prejudicial and potentially confusing to a jury. if any. in a trial of this action. I lowcvcr. HMCi's request to strike the allegations which support the plaintirt~s fourth. lillh. an<l sixth causes of action is denied as those claims ha,·c not been dismissed. or J\ccordi ngly. I !MCI's motion for summary judgment dism i.ssing th<.: complaint. and lo strike material frnm tr~ <.:<'mrlainL i-: granted tn the ('-,;tent th<il the "ccond and third causes of action arc dismissed. and the language in the lirsl cause or action alleging a violation of the Human Rights Law is stricken. and is otherwise denied . The Court directs that th<.: causes or action as lo which summary j udgmcnt ''as granted arc hereby SC\ cred and that the rcmai ni ng causes or action shall rnntinue ( '"e CPLR 3212 [cl 11 [). sc:1!1dal('l!~ I >at1..·d· 1\ug.11-;t X. ~O 17 11 n. b<.:ph h1rnct1 /\' · g Justice Supreme Coun Fli'\AL DISPOSITIO~ ~ "'O~-F1"1AL DISPOSITION

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.