From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. Antell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 10, 2017
147 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

02-10-2017

Caroline MARSHALL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DARRICK E. ANTELL, MD, P.C., et al., Defendants–Respondents.

The Orlow Firm, Flushing (Thomas P. Murphy of counsel), for Appellant. Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for Respondents.


The Orlow Firm, Flushing (Thomas P. Murphy of counsel), for Appellant.

Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for Respondents.

SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 29, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While defendant nurse owed a duty of care to plaintiff in the ordinary negligence context when she was assisting plaintiff in plaintiff's home after a surgical procedure (see Weiner v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 88 N.Y.2d 784, 787–788, 650 N.Y.S.2d 629, 673 N.E.2d 914 [1996] ; Coursen v. New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 114 A.D.2d 254, 256–257, 499 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept.1986] ), the evidence does not show that she breached the duty. There is no evidence to indicate that she acted unreasonably in retrieving the blender from the top shelf of the kitchen cabinet. Nor could she have known that an unsecured blade was in the bowl, as plaintiff did not warn her of the hazard. Under the circumstances presented, it was plaintiff's own negligence in storing the blade and failing to warn that was the sole proximate cause of her injuries (see Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc., 72 N.Y.2d 972, 534 N.Y.S.2d 360, 530 N.E.2d 1280 [1988] ).

Absent negligence on the nurse's part, the respondeat superior claim against her employer was properly dismissed (see Moorhouse v. Standard, N.Y., 124 A.D.3d 1, 12, 997 N.Y.S.2d 127 [1st Dept.2014] ). Furthermore, since the nurse was acting within the scope of her employment, plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, supervision, and training fails (see Karoon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 241 A.D.2d 323, 659 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.1997] ).


Summaries of

Marshall v. Antell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 10, 2017
147 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Marshall v. Antell

Case Details

Full title:Caroline MARSHALL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DARRICK E. ANTELL, MD, P.C., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 10, 2017

Citations

147 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
47 N.Y.S.3d 275
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1129

Citing Cases

McCabe v. Cent. Park Aesthetic & Laser

To the extent plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently trained or supervised the technician Azarowicz,…

Janik v. Lebovits

Ordinarily, where a here, plaintiff alleges that Bizerril-Williams was acting within the scope of her…