LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEDRERO v MOREAU Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEDRERO, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>081_0731, City, Physicians, York, General Municipal Law, Appellants, Judge, Memorandum, Motion, Summary Judgment, Morrisania, Hospitals, Municipal Corporation, Supreme Court, Summary Judgment Dismissing, Complaint, Juan, Respondent, Publication, Appellate Division, Costs, Birth, Hhc, Liability, Compensation, Employment, Indemnity, Claim Provisions, Regardless , ContentID: 120248997

Case Documents
1 1992-12-16 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120907
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PHYSICIANS
YORK
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW
APPELLANTS
JUDGE
MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANTS
MOTION
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PLAINTIFF
MORRISANIA
HOSPITALS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
SUPREME COURT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
JUAN
RESPONDENT
PUBLICATION
APPELLATE DIVISION
COSTS
BIRTH
HHC
LIABILITY
COMPENSATION
EMPLOYMENT
INDEMNITY
CLAIM PROVISIONS
REGARDLESS


  JUAN PEDRERO, A/K/A JUAN RIVERA, AN INFANT, &C., RESPONDENT, v. ANTOINE
  CLAUDE MOREAU, ET AL., APPELLANTS.

    81 N.Y.2d 731, 609 N.E.2d 117, 593 N.Y.S.2d 764 (1992).
    December 16, 1992

   1 No. 273
   Decided December 16, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Stephen J. McGrath, for Appellants.
   Roy A. Kuriloff, for Respondent.

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
   defendants' motion for summary judgment granted, and the certified
   question answered in the negative.

   Plaintiff, born June 3, 1970 at Morrisania Hospital in New York City,
   commenced this malpractice action against six physicians for injuries
   allegedly sustained as a result of a negligently-induced premature
   birth. Morrisania was operated by the City of New York until July 1,
   1970, when control was transferred to the New York City Health and
   Hospitals Corporation (HHC).

   In 1982, a notice of claim was served upon the Comptroller of the City
   of New York, and in 1983 Supreme Court permitted plaintiff to serve
   HHC with a late notice of claim. The notice served on the City was
   untimely, having been served more than ten years after plaintiff's
   birth. Thus if such notice was a prerequisite to this action, Supreme
   Court properly dismissed the complaint.

   In June 1970, when the cause of action accrued, General Municipal Law
   § 50-d(1) required every "municipal corporation" to assume liability
   for, and save harmless, physicians who treat persons "without
   receiving compensation from such person in a public institution
   maintained in whole or in part by the municipal corporation * * *." No
   action could be commenced against such physicians unless the notice of
   claim procedure was followed (former General Municipal Law § 50-d(2)),
   which plaintiff concededly failed to do in this case.

   Although the Appellate Division divided over the employment status of
SNIPPETS:
  • JUAN PEDRERO, A/K/A JUAN RIVERA, AN INFANT, &C., RESPONDENT, v. ANTOINE
  • CLAUDE MOREAU, ET AL., APPELLANTS.
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Roy A. Kuriloff, for Respondent.
  • The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendants' motion for
  • Plaintiff, born June 3, 1970 at Morrisania Hospital in New York City, commenced this
  • Morrisania was operated by the City of New York until July 1, 1970, when control was
  • In 1982, a notice of claim was served upon the Comptroller of the City of New York, and in
  • In June 1970, when the cause of action accrued, General Municipal Law § 50-drequired every
  • No action could be commenced against such physicians unless the notice of claim procedure was
  • Although the Appellate Division divided over the employment status of the physicians on June
  • If both prongs are satisfied, then the vicarious liability, indemnity and notice of claim
  • Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the
  • Order reversed, with costs, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
  • Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
  •    |