You are here: / / RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM...
, ,

RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release, which purported to cover future actions in a medical malpractice suit resulting from a hospital (NSUH) admission, did not preclude a second suit that arose from a second hospital admission:

The parties settled Action No. 1 … and executed … a release that released NSUH “and all . . . related business entities . . . and all . . . employees, physicians, [and] servants, . . . from all past, present and future [*2]claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, wrongful death or bodily or personal injury claims . . . of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, based upon any legal or equitable theory, . . . which the RELEASORS, their heirs, executors, administrators . . . hereafter can, shall, or may now have, or may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, against RELEASEES for, upon, or by reason or any actual or alleged act, omission, transaction, practice, conduct, occurrence, or other matter . . . from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE” (hereinafter the release). * * *

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, NSUH failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the release executed by the parties settling Action No. 1 was intended to preclude the plaintiff from recovering for claims that allegedly arose during and as a result of the second admission, which were not yet in dispute at the time the release was executed … . While the plaintiff may have been aware of the incident giving rise to Action No. 2 when she signed the release, any such awareness is insufficient, itself, to establish that the release was intended to cover any potential claims which were not the subject of Action No. 1. Chiappone v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05569, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF, THE REAR DRIVER, RAISED CREDIBILITY ISSUES BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE POLICE REPORT AND AVERRING DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY WITHOUT USING A TURN SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSE WAS INADEQUATE BUT THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
INMATE PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL A PRISON OFFICER AS A WITNESS TO DETERMINE THE BASIS OF THE OFFICER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED A WEAPON, DETERMINATION ANNULLED BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION THE COMPLAINT MUST ALLEGE THE ACTUAL WORDS, WHEN THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE AND TO WHOM THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE; ALLEGING THE “GENERAL CONTENT” OF THE STATEMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHEN AND TO WHOM THEY WERE MADE IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, THERE WAS ALSO PROOF THE MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AND WAS RETURNED; WITHOUT PROOF PLAINTIFFS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE 90-DAY NOTICES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF... EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON...