Lockhart v. Grace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lockhart v. Grace

189 A.D.2d 656

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 656 (Lockhart v. Grace) 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

Lockhart v. Grace, 189 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Dontzin, J.), entered on or about April 1, 1992, which denied defendant St. Vincent’s Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

With regard to the hospital’s vicarious liability for the alleged malpractice in the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent, based upon all of the attendant circumstances (Augeri v Massoff, 134 AD2d 308, 309), a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the decedent justifiably relied upon the skill and care of the two defendant physicians or was treated by them under the apparent authority of the hospital (see, Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79-81). The physicians’ conclusory statements that they were acting independently of the hospital do not serve conclusively to establish the degree of control actually exercised over them by the hospital (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535, 547; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Dontzin, J.), entered on or about April 1, 1992, which denied defendant St. Vincent’s Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

With regard to the hospital’s vicarious liability for the alleged malpractice in the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent, based upon all of the attendant circumstances (Augeri v Massoff, 134 AD2d 308, 309), a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the decedent justifiably relied upon the skill and care of the two defendant physicians or was treated by them under the apparent authority of the hospital (see, Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79-81). The physicians’ conclusory statements that they were acting independently of the hospital do not serve conclusively to establish the degree of control actually exercised over them by the hospital (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535, 547; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., supra). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-grace-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack