Ciceron v. Gulmatico
Opinion
| Ciceron v Gulmatico |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 05118 |
| Decided on October 11, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 11, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
BARRY E. WARHIT
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
2021-06107
2021-06804
(Index No. 2635/13)
v
Constantino . Gulmatico, etc., et al., defendants, Beth Israel Medical Center, respondent. Robert G. Leino, New York, NY, for appellants.
Shaub Ahmuty Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Christopher Simone and Nicholas Tam of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), dated July 13, 2021, and (2) a clerk's judgment of the same court dated August 2, 2021. The order dated July 13, 2021, insofar as appealed from, (1) granted the motion of the defendant Beth Israel Medical Center which was for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant Constantino V. Gulmatico, upon reargument, in effect, vacated so much of an order of the same court dated January 4, 2021, as denied that branch of that prior motion, and, thereupon, granted that branch of the prior motion of the defendant Beth Israel Medical Center which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant Constantino V. Gulmatico, and (2) denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, in effect, for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the prior motion of the defendant Beth Israel Medical Center which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it. The clerk's judgment, upon the order dated July 13, 2021, is in favor of the defendant Beth Israel Medical Center and against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 13, 2021, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the clerk's judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Beth Israel Medical Center.
The appeal from the order dated July 13, 2021, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the clerk's judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the clerk's judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).
The facts underlying this action can be found in our decision and order in a related appeal decided herewith (Ciceron v Gulmatico ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2021-03249; decided herewith]). The defendant Beth Israel Medical Center (hereinafter Beth Israel) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In an order dated January 4, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of Beth Israel's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant Constantino V. Gulmatico, and granted that branch of Beth Israel's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against it. Beth Israel moved for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of Gulmatico. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and cross-moved, in effect, for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of Beth Israel's prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against Beth Israel. In an order dated July 13, 2021, the court granted Beth Israel leave to reargue, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated so much of the order dated January 4, 2021, as denied that branch of Beth Israel's prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of Gulmatico, and, thereupon, granted that branch of Beth Israel's prior motion, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, in effect, for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of Beth Israel's prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice insofar as asserted against Beth Israel. A clerk's judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Beth Israel and against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Beth Israel. The plaintiffs appeal.
Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of Beth Israel's motion which was for leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221[d][2]). Further, upon reargument, the court properly, in effect, vacated so much of its original determination in the January 4, 2021 order as denied that branch of Beth Israel's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of Gulmatico, and, thereupon, granted that branch of the motion. "In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for the negligence or malpractice of an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself or herself" (Goffredo v St. Luke's Cornwall Hosp., 194 AD3d 699, 700; see Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79). "However, an exception to the rule that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the treatment provided by an independent physician applies where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the plaintiff's choosing, or a nonemployee physician otherwise acted as an agent of the hospital or the hospital exercised control over the physician" (Vargas v Lee, 207 AD3d 684, 685 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Mitchell v Goncalves, 179 AD3d 787, 789). "Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee, and that the exception to the general rule did not apply" (Muslim v Horizon Med. Group, P.C., 118 AD3d 681, 683 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2023 NY Slip Op 05118 (Ciceron v. Gulmatico) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.