From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Infurna v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2000
270 A.D.2d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 2, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 12, 1997, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Rebecca Megna, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julie Steiner, for Defendants-Respondents.

NARDELLI, J.P., TOM, LERNER, RUBIN, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Plaintiff's complaint alleges that his decedent died from injuries sustained when he fell out of his bed because of defendant nursing home's negligent maintenance or use of the bed's guard rails. Plaintiff's proposed amendment would allege that his decedent died from physical abuse inflicted by one or more of defendant's employees, and assert causes of action for assault and negligent hiring and retention. The proposed causes of action were properly rejected as time-barred and not saved by the relation back exception of CPLR 203(f). Plaintiff's original allegations of negligence in the maintenance or use of bed guard rails did not give notice of the present allegations that defendant's employees attacked the decedent (see, Clark v. Foley, 240 A.D.2d 458, lv dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 921) and had a propensity for assaultive behavior of which defendant was aware (see, Detone v. Bullit Courier Serv., 140 A.D.2d 278, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 702).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Infurna v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 2000
270 A.D.2d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Infurna v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:DOMINICK INFURNA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 2, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 478

Citing Cases

Zheng v. Rivera

Consequently, he provided no notice to defendant sufficient to give him reason to anticipate having to defend…

Valle v. Popular Cmty. Bank

As such, the relation-back doctrine does not apply to the SAC's false balance allegations. See Infurna v City…