Delosh v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delosh v. City of Syracuse

64 A.D.2d 814, 407 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12670

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 814 (Delosh v. City of Syracuse) 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

Delosh v. City of Syracuse, 64 A.D.2d 814, 407 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order denying motion of county for summary judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed as to county, and otherwise order affirmed. Memorandum: The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges negligence, malfeasance and nonfeasance, by those officials who supervised the incarceration of decedent at the Onondaga County jail. By law these custodians are members of the Sheriff’s department (Correction Law, § 500-c), and the County of Onondaga cannot be held responsible for their negligence (NY Const, art XIII, § 13, subd [a]; Perry v Custodi, 52 AD2d 1063; Isereau v Stone, 3 AD2d 243; Snow v Harder, 43 AD2d 1003). It is claimed that the defendants were negligent for their failure "to call a competent physician to treat the decedent following his suicide attempt or to transport the decedent to a hospital and instead permitted an inexperienced medical student to perform a tracheotomy”. These allegations refer to services performed by an "extern”, a fourth-year medical student who was hired by the Sheriff. The responsibility of the extern is to provide emergency care for inmates of the county jail—a duty imposed on the Sheriff by law (Correction Law, § 500-c; Onondaga County Administrative Code, § 10.02, subd b; Local Laws, 1961, No. 2 of County of Onondaga). He is paid from funds appropriated to the Sheriff’s department and functions under its supervision. He is neither a member of the staff of the jail physician appointed by the county (Correction Law, § 501) nor a county employee. Whether the extern was a subordinate carrying out the Sheriff’s civil duty or discharging the duties of the Sheriff relating to criminal matters is unimportant, for in neither case is the county responsible for his acts. Since there is no claim of medical malpractice against the extern, section 50-d of the General Municipal Law has no application (see Norr v Spiegler, 56 AD2d 389). We conclude, therefore, that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the county. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—dismiss complaint.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Order denying motion of county for summary judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed as to county, and otherwise order affirmed. Memorandum: The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges negligence, malfeasance and nonfeasance, by those officials who supervised the incarceration of decedent at the Onondaga County jail. By law these custodians are members of the Sheriff’s department (Correction Law, § 500-c), and the County of Onondaga cannot be held responsible for their negligence (NY Const, art XIII, § 13, subd [a]; Perry v Custodi, 52 AD2d 1063; Isereau v Stone, 3 AD2d 243; Snow v Harder, 43 AD2d 1003). It is claimed that the defendants were negligent for their failure "to call a competent physician to treat the decedent following his suicide attempt or to transport the decedent to a hospital and instead permitted an inexperienced medical student to perform a tracheotomy”. These allegations refer to services performed by an "extern”, a fourth-year medical student who was hired by the Sheriff. The responsibility of the extern is to provide emergency care for inmates of the county jail—a duty imposed on the Sheriff by law (Correction Law, § 500-c; Onondaga County Administrative Code, § 10.02, subd b; Local Laws, 1961, No. 2 of County of Onondaga). He is paid from funds appropriated to the Sheriff’s department and functions under its supervision. He is neither a member of the staff of the jail physician appointed by the county (Correction Law, § 501) nor a county employee. Whether the extern was a subordinate carrying out the Sheriff’s civil duty or discharging the duties of the Sheriff relating to criminal matters is unimportant, for in neither case is the county responsible for his acts. Since there is no claim of medical malpractice against the extern, section 50-d of the General Municipal Law has no application (see Norr v Spiegler, 56 AD2d 389). We conclude, therefore, that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against the county. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—dismiss complaint.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 814, 407 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delosh-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack