Ferrer v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrer v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n Medical Center

130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46426

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

DecidedMay 4, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 456 (Ferrer v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n Medical Center) 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

Ferrer v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n Medical Center, 130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Santo Thomas Coppola and Victory Memorial Hospital separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated July 15, 1986, as denied their motion and [457]*457cross motion, respectively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Based upon a review of the record herein, we conclude that a genuine triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellants were in any way responsible for the needle found lodged in the plaintiff's foot. Accordingly, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against each of the appellants were properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Santo Thomas Coppola and Victory Memorial Hospital separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated July 15, 1986, as denied their motion and [457]*457cross motion, respectively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Based upon a review of the record herein, we conclude that a genuine triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellants were in any way responsible for the needle found lodged in the plaintiff's foot. Accordingly, the motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against each of the appellants were properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 456, 515 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrer-v-international-longshoremens-assn-medical-center-nyappdiv-1987.