Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
David ABRAHAM, Respondent, v. Norbert KOSINSKI, D.P.M., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Supreme Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action for failure to state a cause of action and to strike the claim for punitive damages. Those causes of action allege fraud and gross negligence or recklessness, respectively. Dismissal of a fraud cause of action is required “[w]here [it] gives rise to damages which are not separate and distinct from those flowing from an alleged medical malpractice cause of action” (Karlin v. IVF Am., 239 A.D.2d 560, 561, 658 N.Y.S.2d 73). Here, however, the damages flowing from the alleged fraud include plaintiff's continuation of courses of treatment that were ineffective or may not have been pursued but for the alleged fraud and plaintiff's deprivation of courses of treatment that would have been pursued but for the fraudulently withheld information.
Because the third cause of action alleges administrative acts of gross negligence or recklessness “ ‘easily discernible by a jury on common knowledge’ ”, the court properly refused to dismiss that cause of action (Twitchell v. MacKay, 78 A.D.2d 125, 127, 434 N.Y.S.2d 516; see also, Lewis v. Columbus Hosp., 1 A.D.2d 444, 446, 151 N.Y.S.2d 391).
Plaintiff's allegations that defendant Norbert Kosinski, D.P.M., intentionally, willfully and wantonly withheld medical records and information from plaintiff in order to avoid the malpractice claim are sufficient to support the claim for punitive damages (see, McWilliams v. Catholic Diocese of Rochester, 145 A.D.2d 904, 905, 536 N.Y.S.2d 285).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 10, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)