Matthews v. Malkus
| Decision Date | 12 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04CIV.5561CMLMS.,04CIV.5561CMLMS. |
| Citation | 377 F.Supp.2d 350 |
| Parties | Elaine MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. Regina A. MALKUS and Westchester County Medical Center, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Elaine Matthews, Tarpon Springs, FL, pro se.
Robert J. Gironda, Wilson, Bave, Conboy, Cozza & Couzens, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS
Plaintiff Elaine Matthews, a resident of Florida, commenced this action against Regina Malkus, a nurse, and her employer, the Westchester Medical Center. In April 2003, Matthews called Malkus, who was working at a crisis hotline operating out of Westchester County, New York. Matthews said something about killing herself or wanting to die, and Malkus believed Plaintiff was expressing "suicidal ideations." So she phoned authorities in Florida (where Matthews lived) to alert them to a potentially suicidal person. The local police in Florida arrived and took Plaintiff to a hospital, where she stayed for twenty-nine hours for evaluation. No one fed or watered plaintiff's cat while she was in the hospital, and shortly after she arrived home, the cat died.
Plaintiff has filed this action, claiming: (i) medical malpractice and/or professional negligence and/or professional recklessness; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) defamation/slander; (iv) false imprisonment; (v) false light; (vi) invasion of privacy/trespass; and (vii) violations to civil rights and to constitutional guarantees, (viii) intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims.
For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and all claims are dismissed.
The following undisputed facts are assumed true for purposes of this motion:
Just after midnight on Thursday, April 3, 2003, plaintiff Elaine Matthews ("Matthews") dialed 411 and asked the information operator for the number of a 24-hour help line in the 914 area code. Complaint ("Cplt.") at ¶ 9. Matthews lives in Florida but was originally from Westchester County, where 914 is the area code. Id. at ¶ 10. Matthews was given the number for the Westchester County Department of Social Services, which, after hours, has its calls transferred to the Westchester County Police. Id. at ¶ 11.
When Matthews' call was answered by the police department, Matthews explained that she was trying to reach a 24-hour help line. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13. Matthews was subsequently transferred to the Westchester County Medical Center Crisis Line, where defendant, Regina Malkus ("Malkus"), answered the phone. Cplt. at ¶ 14; Malkus Aff. at ¶ 4. Matthews asked Malkus for her number so that she could call her right back. Cplt. at ¶ 14; Malkus Aff. at ¶ 7.
Malkus gave Matthews her number at the Westchester County Medical Center, and Matthews called her there. Id. at ¶ 15; Malkus Aff. at ¶¶ 7, 8. During the course of the conversation, Matthews said either "I wish I were dead" or "I want to die." Id. at ¶ 20; Malkus Aff. at ¶ 13. Malkus had a "caller identification" feature on her telephone at the medical center so she knew Matthew's phone number and where she was calling from. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24; Malkus Aff. at ¶¶ 17, 20. Malkus suggested that Matthews call her local hospital. Id. at ¶ 26; Malkus Aff. ¶¶ 18, 19. The call ended. Id. at ¶ 27.
Malkus then called law enforcement officials in Pinellas County, Florida. She told them about Matthews's call and said that Matthews was having "suicidal ideations." Id. at 47; Malkus Aff. at ¶ 23. The police department gave Malkus the number for a "PENHS hotline." Malkus Aff. ¶ 23. Malkus called the hotline number and spoke to someone named "Oscar," who said he would call Matthews. Malkus Aff. at ¶¶ 24, 25.
Oscar contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff Department to ask that they make a welfare check of Matthews at her home. Malkus Aff. at ¶ 26. Prior to dispatching police officers to Matthews home, a representative of the Pinellas Sheriff Department called Malkus at the Westchester Medical Center. (Audio Tape: Conversations between PENHS and the St. Petersburg Police Department; the St. Petersburg Police Department and the Pinalles County Sheriff Department; the St. Petersburg Police Department and PENHS; the Pinalles County Sheriff Department and Malkus (Submitted on February 22, 2005) ("Matthews Tapes"))1. During the course of the conversation, the representative confirmed the information Malkus had provided PENHS with Malkus. Id. Malkus offered to call Matthews to ascertain her mental state. Id. The representative told Malkus that would be unnecessary, because police officers were being sent to perform a welfare check on Matthews. Id.
At around 9:00 a.m. on the morning of April 3, two law enforcement officers came to Matthews' condominium and rang her doorbell. Cplt. at ¶¶ 30-31. When Matthews opened the door, the police took her to a nearby hospital. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. Some neighbors observed Matthews being placed in the police car. Id. at ¶ 33. Matthews was kept at the hospital until she could be evaluated by the attending psychiatrist. Id. at ¶ 35. At around 12:30 p.m. on Friday, April 4, Matthews was examined by the hospital's psychiatrist. Id. at ¶ 40. Approximately two hours later (or approximately 29 hours after she was involuntarily taken from her home), she was released from the hospital. Id. at ¶ 41. When Matthews returned home, her cat's food and water bowls were empty. The cat died the next day. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 44.
Matthews claims that, as a result of these events, she "severely suffered damage to her person, personal humiliation and fear, past and future mental pain, anguish and suffering, past and future emotional distress, past and future inconvenience, the past and future loss of capacity to enjoy life, and other damages." Cplt. at ¶ 79.
The negligence that plaintiff alleges by Malkus and the Westchester County Medical Center included: (1) not immediately informing plaintiff that the number she had been connected to was a mobile crisis line (Cplt. at ¶ 16); (2) not immediately informing plaintiff that her phone number showed up on defendants' caller identification (Id.); (3) failing to recognize that plaintiff's statement, "I wish I were dead," was a mere figure of speech (Id. at ¶ 20); (4) Malkus's responding in a "intimidating and menacing" way by saying, "I know your phone number" (Id. at ¶ 21); (5) Malkus telling law enforcement officials in Pinellas County, Florida that Matthews was having "suicidal ideations" (Id. at ¶ 46.). Plaintiff also alleges that "Malkus, when working for Westchester Medical Center, showed a willful and wonton indifference to the rights of plaintiff, or such reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights as to be the equivalent of an intentional violation of those rights." (Id. at ¶ 53.)
This is the second law suit filed by Matthews in this matter. Matthews elected to withdraw her initial suit, Matthews v. Westchester Medical Center, 03 Civ. 4011, after a telephonic initial pre-trial conference. At that conference (which was duly transcribed), this court questioned Matthews at length, to try to understand whether there was any basis for her lawsuit. Matthews apparently believed that the court was trying to assist defendants by doing so.2
When Matthews sought leave to withdraw her first action, the court suspected that she might be engaged in judge shopping. I explained to her that under the rules of our court, any subsequent action she filed in the Southern District of New York would end up assigned to me. However, I allowed her to withdraw her suit.
Matthews then filed a second suit in federal court in Florida. On defendants' motion, it was transferred from the United States District Court in the Middle District of Florida to the Southern District of New York in July 2004. As this court had warned Matthews, the new action was assigned to me.
Matthews made a motion for an order declaring that Florida law would govern her claims. The motion was denied. Matthews v. Malkus, 352 F.Supp.2d 398 (S.D.N.Y., 2004).
A party is entitled to summary judgment when there is no "genuine issue of material fact," and the undisputed facts warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ("Anderson II"). In addressing a motion for summary judgment, "the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment is sought and must draw all reasonable inferences in [its] favor." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Whether any disputed issue of fact exists is for the Court to determine. Balderman v. United States Veterans Admin., 870 F.2d 57, 60 (2d Cir.1989). The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a disputed issue of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The party opposing summary judgment "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation." Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir.1998). Moreover, not every disputed factual issue is material in light of the substantive law that governs the case. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude summary judgment." Anderson II, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case, because all the material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaplan v. Cnty. of Orange
...intentional entry by defendants on to plaintiffs’ land and the wrongful use without justification or consent." Matthews v. Malkus , 377 F. Supp. 2d 350, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (discussing New York law); see also N.Y. State Energy Research & Dev. Auth. v. Nuclear Fuel Servs., Inc. , 561 F. Supp......
-
Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr. Inc. v. Blass
...of the case demands immediate intervention.” Warner v. State, 297 N.Y. 395, 401, 79 N.E.2d 459 (1948); see also Matthews v. Malkus, 377 F.Supp.2d 350, 358 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Lauer v. State, 57 A.D.2d 673, 674, 393 N.Y.S.2d 813 (3d Dep't, 1977) (finding that where there was “a substantial and g......
-
Green v. City of Mount Vernon
...the intentional entry by defendants on to plaintiffs' land and the wrongful use without justification or consent.” Matthews v. Malkus, 377 F.Supp.2d 350, 359 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (discussing New York law); see also N.Y. State Energy Research & Dev. Auth. v. Nuclear Fuel Servs., Inc., 561 F.Supp. ......
-
Kraft v. City of New York, 07 Civ. 02978(DC).
...500 N.Y.S.2d 146, 148 (2d Dep't 1986)), or if the breach "causes the plaintiff to fear for his or her own safety." Matthews v. Malkus, 377 F.Supp.2d 350, 361 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (internal citations omitted). "The duty in such cases must be specific to the plaintiff, and not some amorphous, free-......