Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hospital Ass'n

4 A.D.2d 874, 166 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4414
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 7, 1957
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 4 A.D.2d 874 (Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hospital Ass'n) 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
Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hospital Ass'n, 4 A.D.2d 874, 166 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

The single cause of action states that respondent entered into a contract in connection with entering appellant’s hospital for surgery, and agreed to pay appellant for the use of its facilities, together with necessary, competent and capable help and nurses; that appellant was under a duty to use care in the choice of said help and nurses but breached that duty, and that appellant’s said breach of duty caused respondent’s damages. The appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the cause of action did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action thereon (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 107, subd. 5). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. It is immaterial whether the action be regarded as ex contractu or ex delicto. Since appellant’s common-law duty and its implied contractual obligation were one and the same, the suit, however labeled, is one in negligence, at least for time limitation purposes" (Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N. Y. 140, 148; Webber v. Herkimer & Mohawk St. B. B. Co., 109 N. Y. 311; Hermes v. Westchester Bacing Assn., 213 App. Div. 147; Loehr v. East Side Omnibus Corp., 259 App. Div. 200, afld. 287 N. Y. 670). Accordingly, the three-year period of limitation (Civ. Prae. Act, § 49, subd. 6) applies. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Staveley v. St. Charles Hospital
173 F.R.D. 49 (E.D. New York, 1997)
Bleiler v. Bodnar
65 N.Y. 65 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Gottlieb v. Ranzenhofer
81 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Union Bank of Switzerland v. HS Equities, Inc.
423 F. Supp. 927 (S.D. New York, 1976)
Naetzker v. Brocton Central School District
50 A.D.2d 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Schum v. Bailey
398 F. Supp. 164 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Baum v. Turel
206 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. New York, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.2d 874, 166 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gautieri-v-new-rochelle-hospital-assn-nyappdiv-1957.