Auek v. Affiliated Home Care of Putnam, Inc.

63 A.D.3d 972, 883 N.Y.S.2d 71
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 972 (Auek v. Affiliated Home Care of Putnam, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Auek v. Affiliated Home Care of Putnam, Inc., 63 A.D.3d 972, 883 N.Y.S.2d 71 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated March 4, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs decedent, who had multiple sclerosis, choked on a hotdog. At the time of the incident, the defendant’s employees, two home health care aides, were assigned to care for the decedent. One of the aides, unsuccessfully attempted to perform either the Heimlich maneuver or cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the decedent and called for an ambulance. The decedent was taken to the hospital, where he died. It is undisputed that the defendant was required to assist the decedent with feeding and that both of the aides were in another room when the decedent choked on the hotdog. “Where a defendant is responsible for caring for an individual, the defendant’s abandonment of that individual can result in liability” (Willis v City of New York, 266 AD2d 207, 208 [1999]; Reavey v State of New York, 125 AD2d 656 [1986]). There are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant breached its

[973]*973duty of care to the decedent by leaving him unattended while he was eating (see Esposito v Personal Touch Home Care, 288 AD2d 337 [2001]; Reavey v State of New York, 125 AD2d at 657). Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ward v. New Century Home Care, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 4222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Langner v. Primary Home Care Services, Inc.
83 A.D.3d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.3d 972, 883 N.Y.S.2d 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auek-v-affiliated-home-care-of-putnam-inc-nyappdiv-2009.