Padula v. Bucalo

266 A.D.2d 524, 698 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12228
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 524 (Padula v. Bucalo) 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
Padula v. Bucalo, 266 A.D.2d 524, 698 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), dated August 19, 1998, which, upon a jury ■verdict, is in her favor and against the defendant Terrace Heights Hospital only in the sum of $246,617.08.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We reject the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court should have charged the jury that the defendant Terrace Heights Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) could be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the defendant Dr. Robert Goldberger, and the nonparty Dr. Jeffrey Applebaum. As a general rule, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not its employee (see, Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72; Abraham v Dulit, 255 AD2d 345). An exception to this rule exists where the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular [525]*525physician of the patient’s choosing (see, Abraham, v Dulit, supra; Litwak v Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 238 AD2d 881; Ryan v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 220 AD2d 734).

The plaintiff failed to introduce any credible evidence from which a jury could have concluded that the doctors at issue were hospital employees, and there was no evidence supporting a finding that the exception to the general rule applied here.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pinnock v. Mercy Med. Ctr.
2020 NY Slip Op 1374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Galluccio v. Grossman
2018 NY Slip Op 3664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Gardner v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center
73 A.D.3d 1124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Sampson v. Contillo
55 A.D.3d 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rizzo v. Staten Island University Hospital
29 A.D.3d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
21 A.D.3d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Christopherson v. Queens-Long Island Medical Group, P.C.
17 A.D.3d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Orgovan v. Bloom
7 A.D.3d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ventura v. Beth Israel Medical Center
297 A.D.2d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Woodard v. LaGuardia Hospital
282 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 524, 698 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padula-v-bucalo-nyappdiv-1999.