Petty v. North General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petty v. North General Hospital

1 A.D.3d 288, 767 N.Y.S.2d 590, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12502

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2003·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered December 3, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent security company’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action for false imprisonment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was among several individuals asked by a security guard to submit to a strip search before receiving treatment at defendant hospital, failed to establish the guard’s intention to confine him, an essential element of the tort of false imprisonment (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]). The fact that plaintiff was a vulnerable consumer in need of hospital services may have created a coercive situation in his mind, but he does not allege, nor is there any evidence, that he was prevented from leaving the premises (see Arrington v Liz [289] Claiborne, Inc., 260 AD2d 267 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered December 3, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent security company’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action for false imprisonment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who was among several individuals asked by a security guard to submit to a strip search before receiving treatment at defendant hospital, failed to establish the guard’s intention to confine him, an essential element of the tort of false imprisonment (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]). The fact that plaintiff was a vulnerable consumer in need of hospital services may have created a coercive situation in his mind, but he does not allege, nor is there any evidence, that he was prevented from leaving the premises (see Arrington v Liz [289] Claiborne, Inc., 260 AD2d 267 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Petty v. North General Hospital, 1 A.D.3d 288, 767 N.Y.S.2d 590, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

1 A.D.3d 288 (Petty v. North General Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related