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.
Julie RIZZO, et al., appellants, v. STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, respondent, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated December 10, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Staten Island University Hospital and the defendant John Capatorto which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Staten Island University Hospital.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“As a general rule, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not its employee” (Padula v. Bucalo, 266 A.D.2d 524, 698 N.Y.S.2d 911; see Hill v. St. Clare's Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d 72, 79, 499 N.Y.S.2d 904, 490 N.E.2d 823; Johanessen v. Singh, 259 A.D.2d 670, 686 N.Y.S.2d 830). An exception to the general rule exists when a patient enters the hospital through the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician chosen by the patient (see Padula v. Bucalo, supra; Abraham v. Dulit, 255 A.D.2d 345, 679 N.Y.S.2d 707; Litwak v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp. of Lackawanna, 238 A.D.2d 881, 660 N.Y.S.2d 914).
Here, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the defendant Staten Island University Hospital's (hereinafter the Hospital) prima facie showing that the defendant John Capatorto was not an employee of the Hospital and that the exception to the general rule did not apply (see Padula v. Bucalo, supra ). Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to present medical evidence to refute the opinion of the Hospital's expert that no independent acts of negligence were committed by any employees of the Hospital or, alternatively, to identify an action or omission by an identified employee of the hospital which caused the plaintiff's injury (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the Hospital.
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: May 09, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)