Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
May 11, 2010Page 1.S. (ANONYMOUS) v INDEPENDENT GROUP HOMELIVING PROGRAM, INC.
 Supreme Court of the State of New YorkAppellate Division: Second Judicial Department
D27347Y/prtAD3d Submitted - March 15, 2010REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLORUTH C. BALKINJOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
 
2009-02011DECISION & ORDER Marilyn S. (Anonymous), et al., appellants, vIndependent Group Home Living Program, Inc.,et al., respondents.(Index No. 10391/07)
 
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellants.LewisBrisboisBisgaard&Smith,LLP,NewYork,N.Y.(JohnDoodyandBrianP.Graffeo of counsel), for respondents.In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotionaldistressandassault,andforajudgmentdeclaringthatthedefendantIndependentGroupHomeLivingProgram,Inc.,violatedMentalHygieneLaw§ 33.02, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheirbrief,fromsomuchofanorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated January 15,2009,asgranted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgmentdismissingthecauseofaction for declaratory relief, the cause of action to recover damages for intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressinsofarasasserted against the defendant IndependentGroupHome Living Program, Inc., and the causes of action to recover damages for assault andnegligent hiring and supervision.ORDEREDthattheorderismodified,onthelaw,(1)bydeletingtheprovisionthereof grantingthatbranchofthedefendants’motionwhichwasfor summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’causeofactionfordeclaratory relief and substituting therefor a provision denying that branchofthemotion,and(2)bydeletingtheprovisionthereofgrantingthatbranchofthedefendants’motion which was forsummaryjudgmentdismissingtheassaultcauseofactionasserted on behalf 
 
May 11, 2010Page 2.S. (ANONYMOUS) v INDEPENDENT GROUP HOMELIVING PROGRAM, INC.oftheplaintiffPaulSybalskiandsubstitutingthereforaprovisiondenyingthatbranchofthemotion;as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.Theplaintiffs’adultson,whoismentallychallenged,residedatagrouphomeoperated bythedefendantIndependentGroupHomeLivingProgram,Inc.(hereinafterIGHL),inCentereach.BeginninginJuly2004,theplaintiffs,inparticularMarilynS.,madenumerouscomplaintstoIGHLregardingthecaretheirsonreceivedatthegrouphome. Thereafter, a contentious relationshipdevelopedbetweentheplaintiffsandIGHL. By letters dated August 31, 2004, and March 1, 2006,respectively,IGHLrestrictedtheplaintiffs’visitationrightswiththeir son by requiring them to provide advancenotice before any visit and limiting each visit to three hours, due to IGHL’s belief that the plaintiffs’ visits interrupted the operation of the group home.Theplaintiffscommencedanaction in the United States District Court, EasternDistrictofNewYork,againstIGHL,amongothers,seekingtohavethevisitationrestrictionslifted(hereinafterthefederalaction). During the pendency of the federal action, IGHL informed the plaintiffsthattheirsonmadeallegationsduringdinneratthegrouphomeonNovember28,2006,thatMarilyn had sexually abused him. IGHL further limited Marilyn’s visitation rights with her son byrestrictingherfrombeingalonewithhimpending the results of theinvestigation,whichultimatelyresultedinafindingthattheallegationsofsexualabusewereinconclusive. The federal actionsubsequentlywasdismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, seeking adeclaratoryjudgmentthatIGHLviolatedMentalHygieneLaw§33.02byrestrictingtheirvisitationrightswiththeirson,basedonthelettersdatedAugust31,2004,andMarch1,2006. The plaintiffsalso sought to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based onthemanner inwhichIGHLimplementedandenforcedthevisitationrestrictions. The plaintiffs further sought torecoverdamages,interalia,forassaultandnegligenthiringandsupervisionbasedonanincidentthatoccurredonApril21,2007,involving a verbalaltercationbetweentheplaintiffsandthedefendantsMichaelPitts,RoyGolden,andVincentSpitiri,whowereIGHLemployees. Thereafter, thedefendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.TheSupremeCourterredingrantingthatbranchofthedefendants’motionwhichwasforsummaryjudgmentdismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of actionfordeclaratoryrelief. Contrary tothe defendants’contention,IGHL’srestrictionoftheplaintiffs’visitationrights with their son wasnotimposedinresponsetoallegationsmadebytheir son that Marilyn sexually abused him.Therefore,IGHLcouldnotrelyuponMentalHygieneLaw§13.21(b)orSocialServicesLaw§473- btojustifythevisitation restrictions it imposed upon the plaintiffs in the letters dated August 31,2004,andMarch1,2006. Since the defendants failed to offer evidence that the visitation restrictionsthatIGHLimposedupontheplaintiffswerereasonableinlightoftherightsprovidedtothementallychallengedpursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.02, that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.“‘Tosustainacauseofactiontorecoverdamagesforassault,theremustbeproofof  physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact’” (
 FugazyvCorbetta,
34AD3d728,729,quoting
CottervSummitSec.Servs.,Inc.,
14AD3d475,475[internalquotation marks omitted]). With regard to thecauseofaction alleging assault asserted by Marilynagainst Pitts, thedefendantsmettheirprimafacieburdenbyshowingthatPittsdidnotexhibit any
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more