Johnson v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. State

198 A.D.2d 140, 198 N.Y.S.2d 140

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketClaim No. 77418

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 140 (Johnson v. State) 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

Johnson v. State, 198 A.D.2d 140, 198 N.Y.S.2d 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Court of Claims (Edgar C. NeMoyer, J., based upon a trial had before Adolph C. Orlando, J.), entered on or about August 7, 1992, after trial, dismissing on the merits, a personal injury claim against defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that claimant has not proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent claimant from jumping out of a third floor window at the Bronx Psychiatric Center ("Center”). Although an admissions update report prepared on the day of the incident described claimant as being "demanding”, "restless” and "hostile and easily agitated”, there was no indication that he was likely to harm himself or others; the testimony of nurses and therapy aides revealed that claimant appeared happy and was interacting with patients and staff in a friendly fashion. Defendant’s expert witness testified that constant observation of a patient is needed only if there is some indication he may harm himself or others. Since claimant was not abusive or hostile on the evening of the incident, the trial court was entitled to accept the defense expert’s opinion that one-to-one observation was not required, and to disregard the contrary opinion of claimant’s expert witness (see, Sciarabba v State of New York, 182 AD2d 892). Finally, that claimant had told a staff member he was planning to leave the Center, did not indicate that he might jump from a third floor window. The staff was not aware of any suicide attempts in the claimant’s past and, on previous visits, when claimant left the hospital without permission, he exited the doorway.

We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Court of Claims (Edgar C. NeMoyer, J., based upon a trial had before Adolph C. Orlando, J.), entered on or about August 7, 1992, after trial, dismissing on the merits, a personal injury claim against defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that claimant has not proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent claimant from jumping out of a third floor window at the Bronx Psychiatric Center ("Center”). Although an admissions update report prepared on the day of the incident described claimant as being "demanding”, "restless” and "hostile and easily agitated”, there was no indication that he was likely to harm himself or others; the testimony of nurses and therapy aides revealed that claimant appeared happy and was interacting with patients and staff in a friendly fashion. Defendant’s expert witness testified that constant observation of a patient is needed only if there is some indication he may harm himself or others. Since claimant was not abusive or hostile on the evening of the incident, the trial court was entitled to accept the defense expert’s opinion that one-to-one observation was not required, and to disregard the contrary opinion of claimant’s expert witness (see, Sciarabba v State of New York, 182 AD2d 892). Finally, that claimant had told a staff member he was planning to leave the Center, did not indicate that he might jump from a third floor window. The staff was not aware of any suicide attempts in the claimant’s past and, on previous visits, when claimant left the hospital without permission, he exited the doorway.

We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 140, 198 N.Y.S.2d 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack