Doe v. Advantagecare Physicians P.C.

Doe v Advantagecare Physicians P.C. 2024 NY Slip Op 33081(U) September 4, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 508631/2016 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2024 11:38 AM INDEX NO. 508631/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 255 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2024 su·PREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF .KINGS. : C.IVIL TERM: C:CP -.---. ·------ .-- . -------. ----· ... --- ·---·--·· ---x JANE DOE,- Plaintif f, Decision arid order - aga.inst - ADVANTA.GECARE PHYSICIA NS; e.c.-, AND HOWARD M, WEJNTRA.UB-, De.£enda nts., Septemb er 4, 2024 ·- ·--------- - -- -------. ---·. ---. ·- -------. . ·---x.

PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #14 & #lS

The plainti ff comtrtenc ed this action fo1lowin g an inc~_den t that occurred 011 Fe'tp;ua,ry _25, 20f5. On that date the plainti ff alleges she w~s sexo'3clly abused and assaulte d by de.fendan' .C Dr. Howard Weintrau b while underg_o: ing a medi:cql 1$Xarnin_atio.:h ip his ot:f-ice which is part of Advantag e care Physicia ns P ...c.

[hereina f·ter 'AGP' J. The verified. complain t. alleges causes o.f action again$t de::t:en:dc:i.nt Weintrau b fo:r assault, .batte.ry and a· -vi·o1at,l on of the. New Yo.tk C-ity. Victims of Violent -Crime P-.t-otect ion. Act. The verified .com,plai nt alleges. cause.s ot action againf?t defenda nt ACP £_or ne9"lige nt hiring a.hd retent.io ri and neglige nt ·supervi s.ion and the failure to. provide adequate .

se.e.urity . The pa:rt.i·es have- engag·ed i-h disc.ove. ry and n.ow the~e motions s.eeking further dis·cov.e ry hav.e been filed. The plain.ti ff seeks in·format i..on reg.arcti·n g other past and current l i tigai:ion s :i,nvo.lvin g the defenda nt ACP tha,t co.ncern ACP'-· s fa:ilure to respond to comp:lai nts .about seix11al abuse in facilitie s- o.pera.ted .by .ACP. ·spec:iri cally, the plainti" ff all·eges- there are. f-our other· l·i3.wsuits

Conclusions of Law It is well ·s·ettled- tha:.t disc.every -rules ,;:1.pd statutes ~'embodi.es tht:! policy det.erm:i.r.ic).tio n that liberal discovery encourages fair and effective resol.ution of dispute::; on the merits. , min·imizing· the. possibility .-for a~bllsh and µpfair surprise'' (see, Spectrum: systems Internati:ona l Corporation v ..

Chemical Bank, 7 8 1'IY2d 3.:71, 5·75 NYS2d 8 09·- [l-9"-91]) . The te·ach o-f discovery is cominensura·te with the. breadth o-f the p.iaintif f' s allega.tions (Kakharov .v. Archer, 166 AD3d 746r BS NYS"3d 78.0 [2d Dept.; 2·01BJ) • Melfe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, 196 AD3d 811, 151 NY$3cl. 233 [3r.::f ·Dept,, 2021] is instructive. In -that case

.2

-'.3iblings s.ued· a priest; Melfe, fo"r s.exi.lal abuse while .employe d 'by the Dioce--se of Albany. The complain t asserted .ciaims .against the Dioces:e for negligen t supervi sion alleging the Diocese was aw·are of the abuse and did nothing "to stop it from continui n·g. The plainti ff' .s sought informat ibrt regardin g six. other non-par ty priests who were removed from th~ Diocese in 2002; The informa tion was not sought t:o corrot>o rate any a:cts committed by Mel_;fe but ra_ther to clerrions trate a culture within the Diocese pf permitti ng such abuse and thus th~ informa tion could "establi sh insti tutiona i negli.gen e:e and statutor y violatio ns, .which constitu te the Diocese 's actual practice or proi:oc.o l" (id}. Th_e court explaine d that., gene-rall y,, ~yidenc.e; ; of specific acts in the pa.st is not rele_van: t to corr.obo rate alleged _a.cts ln the c~se at ht;lfid. However, the court noted that .evidenc e of a pa,rticu lar pattern of behavior . was discover able. to c.ie:mons trate the ,same behavio r was inainta,i ned. Thus, "evidenc e o.:f;: tpe 1Jioqe.se I s delibe.ra te, and repetiti ve practiqE ! of· si_lehcin g accusati o.hs, if a~y, l..s relevan t and co.uld pe_rmit an. infer$nc e· tha:c the Diocese was negligen t: ip_ this particu lar instance by failing to .act w:hen confro..n t e d w_i th a 11 erg,a t-i ont; o.f Me:l fe 1 s abuse" (id) . The. court rejected the ar9:umen t the file_s o-f the n,on,-par ty pries-ts cCiU:ld not -be introduc -·. ed as habit . . . evidence at trial.. . .

The -court . ..

explain•e "d that whether t.he ipfo-rma tion could later be introduc ed at trial_ had n_o bearing- upon whether the ir1.forma ·tion was

The deferidar its argue the iriforrtra tion s·ought in this cas'e concetris a.11e·gat" ions of miscond uct that took pl-ace at other fac.ilj, ties and do not irivol ve the facility where Dr. Weintrau b worked and do riot involve Dr. Wei"ntrau b at ?11, Thus, the request is over broad .and imprope r. The defenda nts cite to Doren v. Allstar Security _ and Consulti ng Inc., 2023 WL 4234.244 [Supreme Cou:rt N.ew York Cciuti:ty 2023]) . In that case the plainti ff, a.

patron. at a sports club wa~ injureci during _a fight. The pJ,aintif ·f sued Al.lstar , the security company, and asserted claims for negligen t supervis ion and retentio n. The f!lainti ff sought informa tion conc_erni _ng sev~ntE!.en -other lawsvi t_s de:eended by Allst?:1-_r for similar claims that occurred at other i:q9atio ns. Tbe court rej e·.cted the disc.ove ry r.equ.est. The c:ourt expla.ine d that disclosu re w,ouJ.d be app.ropr ia.te \\to _estqbli sh actual or co-n.stru ctive p.ot.ic~- of ·similar c0.nduot .for purpose~ - o_f a ne.gligeri c.e claim'; at the s_ame loqati-oI J v,here· the inciden t oc.curre d. The court noted that "th~ dema-n:ds at, isf?ue in thi.s· cas·e seek disclosu re· of inc-ide_n ts wh_ich happened at other loC.at,ion .s and involve differen t ernployee .s from thos.!: involved in the inciden t giving ris.e to this laws>ui.t" (id).. The court .s·tresse_ d th.at such infor:mat i·ort ·was enti-re.ly irre_l.-ev ant. The c"ciurt conclude d that "what p·1ain_ti ff must. prove in t}:iis· action is that AllstaJ;: ha_d notice o-.;f soni.e- ·dangerb us pr·opens i t.y of· th,e

Of course, it would be irrelevant to allege negligent hiring at one sports club merely because such negligent hiring may exist in a different sports c:lub a.cross town. The two establishments are different in the nature of the customers and patrons, employees, security needs and training required. There is no basis establishing any common thread .or theme between seventeen different incidents that all occurred while All.star was employed as the security company. There is no one size fits all theory that permits the plaintiff at a particular sports club to discover. how fights at other clubs. were handled by· entire.ly different staff in entirely different circumstances. For these reasons the discovery was correctly denied.

In this action the pla:i,ntiff is alleging the unique claim of institutional negligence. While there are sc:holars that assert such negligence raises Constitutional issues in the religious organization context (see, Overview of Institutional Negligence,

Religious Organization _and the Law-, §22: 2·.o by W. Cole Durham •,;ind, Robgrt Smith [Dec_ember 2023 UiJdate]) ho such. critic.i_$m exist regardi°ng medicai facilities. Inde.ed, institutiona l negligence in the Ine,dical arena ci;ii'l pe-- traced. ·to Da-t·ling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 1112d 326, 211 NE2d 253 (Supreme Court ·pf :t.1.1.inois. 1965·.] cert. denied, 3.·s·.3 :u~ s·.. 946 {1966) ·") . This theory views all the facilities- .operating µn(ler one unified umbrella with one unified pattern of behavior when confronted with the same circumstartce s.. There;Eore,, othe-r instances ·of neglecting. allegations. of abu;:;e are surely relevant establishing whether· the· abus:e alle·ged in: this case was likewis.e n_egJected.

··That would help -~~tablish cl.aims -.of negl:i·geh.t supervision.

Therefore, it does not matter when those othet lawsu_its were filed. The pattern is. not dependent on t.ime, rathe.r, it .i,s dependent _upon whether the pi3,-ttern .~xis.ts.

Next, the defendants argue the four other lawsuits do not even involve simj_lar c],.9 ims- :of sexual ab~se, the neglect o>f which would prove relevant. However, all four lawsuits .involye claims f"i'.Led by customer$ or ,emplo-ye·.es alleging some sort of discr"iininati-.o li. or abus.e. The significant iss.ue in,. all fo,u_r c-as.es that are relevant in this ca.s.e is not the na ttire of the allegations pe-r se but rather ACP' s .re-spon-se to the ailegations when first rais~ed. i'll.µs, the plaintiff is entitled tb explore ACP' s response ·or c"b:hduct when first n:otif.ied of claims of abuse

9•.r dis.criminatio n and prtibe ·.whethet· ACP e·stablished. a pattern of i~noring or neglecting such claims as it pertains to its employees. Thus, it is ACP.,s reaction to the claims of abuse that fo.r:i:n th;e pat.tern that c:;an establish a si.milar pattern in this case. This institutiona l neg)igence claim is particularly .apt in case:s ·of ryegiecting' claims of abus-e {Melfe, supra) . Whi.le there: .might be the· potential of est.abli-shing such . . l institution~ .

negligence in the sports club security context, or other ·.contexts, the fl-uict nature o.f those eve,1,1,t.s wo.uld probably f.oreclose ;:mch discov$:i;y in most oases (Doren, supra) . Of course, the defe"ridahts ·will be able to tr"y and·. miti•gate ·any such . ev1dence that is y·ield.ed, however., there. is no :basis to .f·qrec1-ose the information .in the first place.

The ref ore, .based on the. .f ore.g.oing, tbe motion. s.eeki.Ag .information purs-ui:!,nt to the plaint;lff' s notice of d:iscove:ry and inspect ion dated March 15, 202 4 (see, NY SCEF Doc. No . 2 38) is granted. The de.fendants mu~t furn:lsh ''a.11 non-privileg ed documents, communicatio ns, and records in your possessicma (id) regarding the othe-r four lawsuits·• Lastly,. the defendant's· motion. seeking a protective o-·rder .is conse.quently denied. A.11 motions seeking sanctions are denied.

So o.rd,er.ed. ENTER; DATED: ·s.epternbe·r 4 I 2024 Brooklyn, N.Y. Hon .. ~ m a p JSC

[* 7] ··········· ········-- --------- .. --------- of 7 --------- --------- ----