Barry v. Good Samaritan Hospital

New York Court of Appeals

Barry v. Good Samaritan Hospital

438 N.E.2d 1128, 56 N.Y.2d 921, 453 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3511

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 438 N.E.2d 1128 (Barry v. Good Samaritan Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barry v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 438 N.E.2d 1128, 56 N.Y.2d 921, 453 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3511 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

[923]*923OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division exercises the same discretion as does Special Term and may modify a Special Term order in the exercise of discretion even though it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion (Matter of Attorney-General of State of N. Y. v Katz, 55 NY2d 1015, 1017). Here, however, the Appellate Division’s modification was on the law. Because the Special Term order was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, there must be a reversal of the Appellate Division order and a remittal to that body for its further consideration on the facts and in the exercise of discretion.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

[923]*923OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division exercises the same discretion as does Special Term and may modify a Special Term order in the exercise of discretion even though it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion (Matter of Attorney-General of State of N. Y. v Katz, 55 NY2d 1015, 1017). Here, however, the Appellate Division’s modification was on the law. Because the Special Term order was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, there must be a reversal of the Appellate Division order and a remittal to that body for its further consideration on the facts and in the exercise of discretion.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 N.E.2d 1128, 56 N.Y.2d 921, 453 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barry-v-good-samaritan-hospital-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack