Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital

241 A.D.2d 333, 659 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered August 6, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, found in favor of defendant hospital and against plaintiff resident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v Clowes, 224 AD2d 312) supports the trial court’s credibility determination that defendant’s reasons for terminating plaintiffs residency, primarily clinical incompetence, were not a pretext for retaliation motivated by her complaints of illegally excessive hours in violation of 10 NYCRR 405.4 (b) (6). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish an actual violation of the regulation necessary to sustain a cause of action under Labor Law § 740 (Bordell v General Elec. Co., 88 NY2d 869). We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims of breach of contract and exclusion of relevant evidence and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered August 6, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial, found in favor of defendant hospital and against plaintiff resident, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v Clowes, 224 AD2d 312) supports the trial court’s credibility determination that defendant’s reasons for terminating plaintiffs residency, primarily clinical incompetence, were not a pretext for retaliation motivated by her complaints of illegally excessive hours in violation of 10 NYCRR 405.4 (b) (6). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish an actual violation of the regulation necessary to sustain a cause of action under Labor Law § 740 (Bordell v General Elec. Co., 88 NY2d 869). We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims of breach of contract and exclusion of relevant evidence and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 241 A.D.2d 333, 659 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

241 A.D.2d 333 (Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related