Cardoza v. Lawrence Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardoza v. Lawrence Hospital

216 A.D.2d 254, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138

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

DecidedJune 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 254 (Cardoza v. Lawrence Hospital) 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

Cardoza v. Lawrence Hospital, 216 A.D.2d 254, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 17, 1993, which denied defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant hospital, including whether the defendant physician, who treated plaintiff upon arrival at the hospital’s emergency room, was acting on the hospital’s behalf at the time of his alleged acts of malpractice (cf., Sarivola v Brookdale Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 245; Nagengast v Samaritan Hosp., 211 AD2d 878), and whether the treatment by either or both the physician and hospital staff deviated from accepted medical practice, parties having submitted conflicting expert affidavits in that regard (see, Farkas v Saary, 191 AD2d 178,180-181). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 17, 1993, which denied defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of defendant hospital, including whether the defendant physician, who treated plaintiff upon arrival at the hospital’s emergency room, was acting on the hospital’s behalf at the time of his alleged acts of malpractice (cf., Sarivola v Brookdale Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 204 AD2d 245; Nagengast v Samaritan Hosp., 211 AD2d 878), and whether the treatment by either or both the physician and hospital staff deviated from accepted medical practice, parties having submitted conflicting expert affidavits in that regard (see, Farkas v Saary, 191 AD2d 178,180-181). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 254, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardoza-v-lawrence-hospital-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack