You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant medical center (Peconic Bay) did not demonstrate it was not vicariously liable for any malpractice committed by  two doctors (Wackett and McMahon) who treated plaintiff in the emergency room. Although neither doctor was employed by Peconic Bay, there was a question of fact whether they had apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay:

… [T]he medical malpractice cause of action asserted against Peconic Bay alleged that the plaintiff twice sought treatment in Peconic Bay’s emergency room and was treated by, among others, Wackett and McMahon. In moving for summary judgment, Peconic Bay established that neither Wackett nor McMahon was its employee. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Peconic Bay’s emergency room seeking treatment from Wackett or McMahon privately rather than from the hospital itself, and thus, that these physicians did not have apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay … . Peconic Bay further failed to eliminate any triable issues of fact as to whether Wackett or McMahon was negligent in his care and treatment of the plaintiff … . Sessa v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 07570, Second Depty 12-29-21

 

You might also like
INSURER DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS OF THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE, INSURER MUST DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO WARN DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR BEFORE REMOVING DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OR A CO-EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
Golfer Assumed the Risk of Tripping on Grate in Golf-Cart Path
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE... DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS;...