Golub v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golub v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center

226 A.D.2d 118, 640 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3298

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

DecidedApril 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 118 (Golub v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital 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

Golub v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 226 A.D.2d 118, 640 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered April 13, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants complied with their bylaws in denying plaintiff a renewal of his contract and promotion in their residency training program. They are therefore immune from civil liability under Public Health Law § 2805-j (2), which became effective before plaintiff commenced this action, albeit after he left the training program, and which therefore applies (cf., Matter of St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 109 AD2d 711, 712, affd 66 NY2d 959). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered April 13, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants complied with their bylaws in denying plaintiff a renewal of his contract and promotion in their residency training program. They are therefore immune from civil liability under Public Health Law § 2805-j (2), which became effective before plaintiff commenced this action, albeit after he left the training program, and which therefore applies (cf., Matter of St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 109 AD2d 711, 712, affd 66 NY2d 959). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 118, 640 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golub-v-st-lukes-roosevelt-hospital-center-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack