Hairston v. Liberty Behavioral Management Corp.

138 A.D.3d 467, 29 N.Y.S.3d 310
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 2016
Docket769N
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 467 (Hairston v. Liberty Behavioral Management Corp.) 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
Hairston v. Liberty Behavioral Management Corp., 138 A.D.3d 467, 29 N.Y.S.3d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a demand for punitive damages, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff’s decedent voluntarily committed himself to defend *468 ant Arms Acres, an alcohol rehabilitation facility. While under defendant’s care, the decedent, who, in addition to being an alcoholic, suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, became extremely disoriented, began having hallucinations, and attempted to leave the facility. On the morning of September 12, 2009, the decedent was found missing from the facility. His body was discovered on October 18, 2009.

Although, following discovery, the motion court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to include a claim under the Public Health Law, it denied her leave to add a demand for punitive damages pursuant to Public Health Law § 2801-d (2). Punitive damages are available under Public Health Law § 2801-d (2) where the patient has been deprived of a right or benefit and the deprivation “is found to have been willful or in reckless disregard of the lawful rights of the patient.” The motion court held that the conduct alleged to have violated the Public Health Law did not rise to a level that warranted punitive damages. We conclude, to the contrary, that a jury could reasonably find, under these circumstances, that defendant’s failure to provide for the decedent’s safety at a time when he was disoriented and hallucinating warrants an award of punitive damages.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, ManzanetDaniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Related

Muhlstock v. Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale
2024 NY Slip Op 06128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Valensi v. Park Ave. Operating Co., LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 1252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.3d 467, 29 N.Y.S.3d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hairston-v-liberty-behavioral-management-corp-nyappdiv-2016.