Salimi v. New York Methodist Hospital

45 A.D.3d 559, 844 N.Y.S.2d 705
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 559 (Salimi v. New York Methodist 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
Salimi v. New York Methodist Hospital, 45 A.D.3d 559, 844 N.Y.S.2d 705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated May 26, 2006, which, among other things, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York Methodist Hospital, Dean Martin, Robert Rainer, Jason Halper, Osei Soloman, Mark Mundy, and Gillian S. Hans, which were to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7), and those branches of the separate motion of the defendants Park Slope Anesthesia Associates, PC., Joseph Schianodicola, Victorya Gerstheyn, and Devasena Manchikalpati, which were to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Joseph Schianodicola, Victorya Gerstheyn, and Devasena Manchikalpati pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court

[560]*560properly dismissed the third cause of action based upon violation of Labor Law §§ 740 and 741 insofar as asserted against all of the defendants, except Park Slope Anesthesia Associates, P.C. (hereinafter Park Slope), because the plaintiff had no employee-employer relationship with any party other than Park Slope (see Labor Law § 740 [1] [a]; § 741 [1] [a]; Edward M. Stephens, M.D., F.A.A.P. v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 278 AD2d 16 [2000]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Freese v. Willa
89 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Garner v. China Natural Gas, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Deshpande v. Medisys Health Network, Inc.
70 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 559, 844 N.Y.S.2d 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salimi-v-new-york-methodist-hospital-nyappdiv-2007.