Dunn v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.

55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15296
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 6, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 597 (Dunn v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 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
Dunn v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., 55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages predicated upon medical malpractice and breach of a duty to disclose, defendant Maurice Gershman appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 26, 1976, upon a jury verdict, as is in favor of plaintiff and against him. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and, as between plaintiff and defendant Maurice Gershman, action severed and new trial granted limited to the issue of damages only. The findings of fact as to liability are affirmed. A patient’s failure to follow instructions does not defeat an action for malpractice where the alleged improper professional treatment occurred prior to the patient’s own negligence. In the case at bar the trial court declined to charge the jury, as requested by appellant, that it should consider, in mitigation of damages, whether negligence on the part of the plaintiff subsequent to the alleged malpractice contributed to her injuries. That error is so prejudicial that reversal would be required in the interests of justice even if appellant had not timely excepted (see Heller v Medine, 50 AD2d 831; Quinones v Public Administrator of County of Kings, 49 AD2d 889). While a patient is justified in disregarding instructions which are improper (see DuBois v Decker, 130 NY 325, 331; 45 NY Jur, Physicians and Surgeons, § 171), the patient has the duty to exercise reasonable care. On this record, the appellant physician was entitled to have the jury consider, in mitigation of damages, whether there was any negligence on the part of plaintiff or her doctors subsequent to the alleged malpractice (see Carpenter v Blake, 75 NY 12, 24). Latham, Acting P. J., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

SCHULTZ, DONALD v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP
129 A.D.3d 1606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Dombrowski v. Moore
299 A.D.2d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cox v. Lesko
935 P.2d 1086 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1997)
Wilson v. Kane
229 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Somma v. Gracey
544 A.2d 668 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Donovan v. Capozzi
140 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Pedersen v. Balzan
117 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Bellier v. Bazan
124 Misc. 2d 1055 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Cicorelli v. Capobianco
89 A.D.2d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Fourquet v. Caledonian Hospital
82 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Ferrara v. Leventhal
56 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-catholic-medical-center-of-brooklyn-queens-inc-nyappdiv-1976.