Schulman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

226 A.D.2d 164, 640 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3656

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

DecidedApril 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 164 (Schulman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) 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

Schulman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 226 A.D.2d 164, 640 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 27, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion and cross motions to dismiss the first and third causes of action of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the cross motion of defendants Certified Executive Examiners, Inc., Tobias and Kips Bay Medical Associates, P. C., dismissing the complaint as to them and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants, Certified Executive Examiners, Inc., Tobias and Kips Bay Medical Associates, P. C., dismissing and severing the action as against them.

The erroneous report of an HIV positive finding following blood analysis is a " 'special circumstance’ ” that provides assurance that a claim to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of the erroneous report is genuine and not spurious, and therefore plaintiff’s claim may be maintained (Johnson v State of New York, 37 NY2d 378, 382). It is clear that the defendants who handled the blood sample and issued the erroneous report owed a duty of care, under the circumstances herein, to this plaintiff, even in the absence of a direct relationship with him (supra, at 382-383; see, McKinney v Bellevue Hosp., 183 AD2d 563, 565-566). Since the so-called Execumed defendants, enumerated above, had no connection to the vials of blood giving rise to the erroneous result, we modify to grant their cross-motion to dismiss.

We have considered the remaining defendants’ additional [165]*165contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 27, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion and cross motions to dismiss the first and third causes of action of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the cross motion of defendants Certified Executive Examiners, Inc., Tobias and Kips Bay Medical Associates, P. C., dismissing the complaint as to them and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants, Certified Executive Examiners, Inc., Tobias and Kips Bay Medical Associates, P. C., dismissing and severing the action as against them.

The erroneous report of an HIV positive finding following blood analysis is a " 'special circumstance’ ” that provides assurance that a claim to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of the erroneous report is genuine and not spurious, and therefore plaintiff’s claim may be maintained (Johnson v State of New York, 37 NY2d 378, 382). It is clear that the defendants who handled the blood sample and issued the erroneous report owed a duty of care, under the circumstances herein, to this plaintiff, even in the absence of a direct relationship with him (supra, at 382-383; see, McKinney v Bellevue Hosp., 183 AD2d 563, 565-566). Since the so-called Execumed defendants, enumerated above, had no connection to the vials of blood giving rise to the erroneous result, we modify to grant their cross-motion to dismiss.

We have considered the remaining defendants’ additional [165]*165contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 164, 640 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulman-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack