Garcia v. Montefiore Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Montefiore Medical Center

293 A.D.2d 264, 740 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453

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

DecidedApril 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 264 (Garcia v. Montefiore 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

Garcia v. Montefiore Medical Center, 293 A.D.2d 264, 740 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 6, 2000, which granted the motions of defendants Montefiore Medical Center, City of New York and New York City Department of Correction for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record discloses no triable issue as to whether defendants-respondents’ failure to discharge plaintiffs decedent from prison, where she had received psychiatric treatment, pursuant to a written discharge plan (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15 [h]), proximately caused her the harm alleged, namely that her prison therapist would subsequently contact her and coerce her into prostitution. The therapist’s alleged actions were entirely for his own interests, and not in furtherance of defendants-respondents’ business, and therefore do not constitute a basis for holding defendants-respondents vicariously liable (see, Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932). Similarly, there was nothing in the therapist’s record to render his subsequent actions reasonably foreseeable, and therefore the claims for negligent hiring and supervision .were properly dismissed (see, Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 287 AD2d 357). Although plaintiffs decedent’s statement, made after this action was commenced, to a Department of Correction investigator, that the therapist fondled her in prison, might be ac[265]*265cepted in opposition to the summary judgment motions, even though such statement constituted inadmissible hearsay, nevertheless the utterance is insufficient to warrant denial of defendants’ summary judgment motions since there is no evidence raising a triable issue as to whether the therapist, at the time of the alleged intra-institutional misconduct, was acting in furtherance of defendants-respondents’ business, or as to whether defendants-respondents knew or should have known beforehand that he would engage in such improper conduct. Concur—Williams, P.J., Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 6, 2000, which granted the motions of defendants Montefiore Medical Center, City of New York and New York City Department of Correction for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record discloses no triable issue as to whether defendants-respondents’ failure to discharge plaintiffs decedent from prison, where she had received psychiatric treatment, pursuant to a written discharge plan (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15 [h]), proximately caused her the harm alleged, namely that her prison therapist would subsequently contact her and coerce her into prostitution. The therapist’s alleged actions were entirely for his own interests, and not in furtherance of defendants-respondents’ business, and therefore do not constitute a basis for holding defendants-respondents vicariously liable (see, Judith M. v Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 NY2d 932). Similarly, there was nothing in the therapist’s record to render his subsequent actions reasonably foreseeable, and therefore the claims for negligent hiring and supervision .were properly dismissed (see, Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 287 AD2d 357). Although plaintiffs decedent’s statement, made after this action was commenced, to a Department of Correction investigator, that the therapist fondled her in prison, might be ac[265]*265cepted in opposition to the summary judgment motions, even though such statement constituted inadmissible hearsay, nevertheless the utterance is insufficient to warrant denial of defendants’ summary judgment motions since there is no evidence raising a triable issue as to whether the therapist, at the time of the alleged intra-institutional misconduct, was acting in furtherance of defendants-respondents’ business, or as to whether defendants-respondents knew or should have known beforehand that he would engage in such improper conduct. Concur—Williams, P.J., Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 264, 740 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-montefiore-medical-center-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack