GOLDBERG v. EDSON

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2006-04724.

Attorney(S)

McAloon Friedman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy of counsel), for appellant. Faber Troy, Woodbury, N.Y. (Candice A. Pluchino of counsel), for respondents.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an action seeking damages for legal malpractice and medical malpractice. The plaintiffs, Karen Goldberg et al., appealed orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted summary judgment motions dismissing the complaint as to defendants Page Edson, the County of Rockland, and Elizabeth O'Connor. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them, and the appeals contest these rulings.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland are immune from liability under Social Services Law § 419 for their actions in reporting suspected child abuse and removal of the child.
Whether defendant Elizabeth O'Connor was negligent in providing legal services to plaintiff Karen Goldberg, thus precluding summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The plaintiffs challenged the defendants’ entitlement to immunity and argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding the defendants’ alleged misconduct in reporting and removal actions.
The plaintiffs contended that defendant O'Connor was negligent in rendering legal services, opposing the motion for summary judgment.

Respondents' Arguments

Defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland asserted that under Social Services Law § 419, they are immune from liability because their reporting of suspected abuse was made in good faith and pursuant to statutory mandate.
Edson, as a mandated reporter under Social Services Law § 413, acted with reasonable cause and good faith, entitling her to immunity.
Defendant Elizabeth O'Connor argued she was not negligent in her legal representation of Karen Goldberg, establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563	Standard for opposing summary judgment by raising triable issues of fact.	Applied to determine plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues to defeat defendants’ summary judgment motions.
Gershman v Habib, 37 AD3d 530	Supports the standard for summary judgment and immunity under Social Services Law.	Used to affirm defendants’ entitlement to immunity and dismissal of claims.
Rine v Chase, 309 AD2d 796, 798	Mandated reporters have latitude to err on the side of protecting children suspected of abuse.	Supported the court’s conclusion that Edson acted within the scope of good faith immunity.
Isabelle V. v City of New York, 150 AD2d 312, 313	Explanation of the protective latitude afforded to mandated reporters.	Quoted to emphasize the policy behind immunity for mandated reporters.
Lentini v Page, 5 AD3d 914, 915	Immunity attaches if there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse and good faith in reporting.	Applied to find no evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence by Edson.
Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d 598	Standard for establishing negligence in legal malpractice claims.	Used to assess defendant O'Connor’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first analyzed the immunity of defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland under Social Services Law § 419, which provides immunity for mandated reporters acting in good faith when reporting suspected child abuse. Edson, as a mandated reporter under Social Services Law § 413, was required to report reasonable suspicion of abuse. The court recognized that the law grants mandated reporters a degree of latitude to err on the side of protecting children, citing Rine v Chase and Isabelle V.. The defendants demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment by showing immunity applied, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact to rebut the presumption of good faith or allege willful misconduct or gross negligence.

Regarding defendant Elizabeth O'Connor, the court found she established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing no negligence in her legal services to plaintiff Karen Goldberg. The plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact regarding O'Connor’s alleged malpractice. Consequently, the court properly dismissed the complaint against her.

Holding and Implications

The orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to defendants Page Edson, the County of Rockland, and Elizabeth O'Connor are affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The decision directly results in dismissal of the claims against these defendants. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing statutory immunity provisions and summary judgment standards to the facts presented.

Show full summary ...

KAREN GOLDBERG et al., Appellants, v. PAGE EDSON et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland (hereinafter the County) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that pursuant to Social Services Law § 419 they are immune from liability in connection with the reporting of the suspected abuse and the removal of the subject child. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563; Gershman v Habib, 37 AD3d 530). As a social services worker, Edson was a mandated reporter pursuant to Social Services Law § 413. Under that statute, mandated reporters, inter alia, "are required to report or cause a report to be made . . . when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child" (Social Services Law § 413), and "the law allows them a degree of latitude to err on the side of protecting children who may be suffering from abuse" ( Rine v Chase, 309 AD2d 796, 798, quoting Isabelle V. v City of New York, 150 AD2d 312, 313). Immunity attaches where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child might have been abused, and where the reporting party has acted in good faith ( see Lentini v Page, 5 AD3d 914, 915). There is no evidence in the record that Edson was guilty of willful misconduct or gross negligence so as to overcome the statutory presumption of good faith.

The court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Elizabeth O'Connor which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. O'Connor presented evidence prima facie establishing her entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that she was not negligent in rendering her legal services to the plaintiff Karen Goldberg ( see Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d 598). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.