Bottros v. Park Ridge Hospital, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bottros v. Park Ridge Hospital, Inc.

105 A.D.2d 1094, 482 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21181

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1094 (Bottros v. Park Ridge Hospital, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bottros v. Park Ridge Hospital, Inc., 105 A.D.2d 1094, 482 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that State regulation of hospitals is sufficient “State action” to require a due process hearing before a physician may be denied hospital privileges (see Fried v Straussman, 41 NY2d 376, 379); petitioner has advanced no basis for a finding of federal involvement sufficient to give rise [1095]*1095to Federal constitutional due process rights. Even if petitioner were entitled to some degree of due process, we find that the procedures afforded here are adequate. (Appeals from judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that State regulation of hospitals is sufficient “State action” to require a due process hearing before a physician may be denied hospital privileges (see Fried v Straussman, 41 NY2d 376, 379); petitioner has advanced no basis for a finding of federal involvement sufficient to give rise [1095]*1095to Federal constitutional due process rights. Even if petitioner were entitled to some degree of due process, we find that the procedures afforded here are adequate. (Appeals from judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1094, 482 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bottros-v-park-ridge-hospital-inc-nyappdiv-1984.