GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD
105 A.D.3d 207
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Clinton treated at ECMCC in May 2009 and died after discharge and subsequent ambulance transfer.
- Plaintiff served a notice of claim on ECMCC only, not on individual Employee Defendants.
- Plaintiff sued ECMCC and several Employee Defendants for medical malpractice and related claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint against the Employee Defendants for not being served or named in the notice of claim.
- Supreme Court denied the motion; Appellate Division affirmed that service on ECMCC suffices and that naming employees is not required by §50-e.
- Court overruled prior holdings that required naming individual employees in the notice of claim, clarifying statutory interpretation under General Municipal Law §50-e
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on ECMCC suffices to commence action against employees under §50-e | Plaintiff: employees need not be named; service on corporation triggers action | Defendants: employees must be named or served; otherwise action barred | Yes—service on ECMCC suffices; employees not required to be named |
| Whether naming individual employees in the notice of claim is a precondition to suing them | Plaintiff: not required by law; flexibility to identify defendants later | Defendants: §50-e requires naming individuals in the notice | No, not required; prior precedents misapplied and are overruled |
| Whether Rew and Cropsey remain good law | Plaintiff: those decisions should apply | Defendants: should follow precedent | Overruled; these decisions no longer control |
| What governs sufficiency of a Notice of Claim under §50-e | Notice on ECMCC provided required details | Strict adherence to naming individuals is essential | Statutory purpose governs; you may proceed without naming individuals if the notice enables investigation |
| Impact on dismissal motion and scope of appellate review | Court should allow action to proceed | dismissal should follow existing line of cases | Order denying dismissal affirmed; action can proceed against Employee Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Tannenbaum v. City of New York, 30 A.D.3d 357 (1st Dep’t 2003) (statutory requirement not to name individuals mandated by §50-e ( asserted) but questioned authority)
- White v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 195 Misc. 2d 409 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2003) (first to suggest naming individuals may be required; criticized later)
- Schiavone v. County of Nassau, 51 A.D.2d 981 (2d Dep’t 1976) (note that practical difficulty identifying perpetrators influenced rationale)
- Rattner v. Planning Comm’n. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521 (2d Dep’t 1989) (indicates when action against individuals in official capacities requires notice to indemnifying entity)
- Cropsey v. County of Orleans Indus. Dev. Agency, 66 A.D.3d 1361 (3d Dep’t 2009) (initially held that §50-e bars action against unnoted individuals when notice required)
- Rew v. County of Niagara, 73 A.D.3d 1463 (3d Dep’t 2010) (held notice not required where indemnification not applicable; later overruled)
- Schiavone v. County of Nassau, 51 A.D.2d 981 (2d Dep’t 1976) (controls discussion on practical notice and reliance on 50-e)
- Brown v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 389 (1999) (test for sufficiency of Notice of Claim is ability to enable investigation)
- Rosenbaum v. City of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 1 (2006) (noting purpose of Notice of Claim to enable investigation)
- Public Authorities Law § 3641, N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law () (context for ECMCC as public benefit corporation and §50-e applicability)