Rosner v. Maimonides Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosner v. Maimonides Hospital

77 A.D.2d 652, 429 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12382

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 652 (Rosner v. Maimonides 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

Rosner v. Maimonides Hospital, 77 A.D.2d 652, 429 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages resulting from an unlawful sexual attack upon plaintiff while a patient at Maimonides Hospital, the hospital appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1979, which, inter alia, struck so much of its first affirmative defense as alleged that plaintiff’s second cause of action was barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations governing intentional torts. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term properly held that plaintiff’s second cause of action was not barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations governing intentional torts. We note, however, that the second cause of action sets forth a cause of action in negligence and not, as found by Special Term, in contract. As such, it is governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations (see CPLR 214, subd 5). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Lazer, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages resulting from an unlawful sexual attack upon plaintiff while a patient at Maimonides Hospital, the hospital appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1979, which, inter alia, struck so much of its first affirmative defense as alleged that plaintiff’s second cause of action was barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations governing intentional torts. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term properly held that plaintiff’s second cause of action was not barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations governing intentional torts. We note, however, that the second cause of action sets forth a cause of action in negligence and not, as found by Special Term, in contract. As such, it is governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations (see CPLR 214, subd 5). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Lazer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 652, 429 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosner-v-maimonides-hospital-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack