Macari v. Parsons Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macari v. Parsons Hospital

26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890

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

DecidedJune 27, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 584 (Macari v. Parsons Hospital) 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

Macari v. Parsons Hospital, 26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages inter alia for medical malpractice, defendant Parsons Hosiptal appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 25, 1966, which denied its motion to amend its answer so as to assert a cross claim against the three defendant physicians (CPLR 3011, 3025). Order .reversed and motion granted, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. The proposed amended answer (containing the cross claim) printed in the record on appeal shall be deemed to have been served as the defendant hospital’s second amended answer; the time to answer the cross claim is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the cross claim sufficiently alleges a claim of common-law indemnity against the defendant physicians. If plaintiff recovers damages against the defendant hospital based on the negligence of the defendant physicians as its servants, the hospital would be entitled to indemnification (Bing v. Thunig, 2 N Y 2d 656; Opper v. Tripp Lake Estates, 274 App. Div. 422, affd. 300 N. Y. 572; Hollant v. North Shore Hosp., 24 Misc 2d 892, affd. 17 A D 2d 974). Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations both of active and passive negligence on the part of the defendant hospital. Prior to trial it cannot be foretold upon which theory of negligence plaintiff may recover. Consequently, the sufficiency of the cross claim can best be determined at the trial (Lipsman v. Warren, 10 A D 2d 868; Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 21 A D 2d 740). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages inter alia for medical malpractice, defendant Parsons Hosiptal appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 25, 1966, which denied its motion to amend its answer so as to assert a cross claim against the three defendant physicians (CPLR 3011, 3025). Order .reversed and motion granted, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. The proposed amended answer (containing the cross claim) printed in the record on appeal shall be deemed to have been served as the defendant hospital’s second amended answer; the time to answer the cross claim is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the cross claim sufficiently alleges a claim of common-law indemnity against the defendant physicians. If plaintiff recovers damages against the defendant hospital based on the negligence of the defendant physicians as its servants, the hospital would be entitled to indemnification (Bing v. Thunig, 2 N Y 2d 656; Opper v. Tripp Lake Estates, 274 App. Div. 422, affd. 300 N. Y. 572; Hollant v. North Shore Hosp., 24 Misc 2d 892, affd. 17 A D 2d 974). Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations both of active and passive negligence on the part of the defendant hospital. Prior to trial it cannot be foretold upon which theory of negligence plaintiff may recover. Consequently, the sufficiency of the cross claim can best be determined at the trial (Lipsman v. Warren, 10 A D 2d 868; Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 21 A D 2d 740). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macari-v-parsons-hospital-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack