Calhoun v. Gale
| Decision Date | 13 February 1968 |
| Citation | 287 N.Y.S.2d 710,29 A.D.2d 766 |
| Parties | Virginia O. CALHOUN et al., Respondents, v. Julius P. GALE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Julien & Glaser, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents; Helen B. Stoller, New York City, on the brief.
Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City, for defendant-appellant Julius P. Gale; George van Setter, New York City, of counsel.
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, BENJAMIN, MUNDER and MARTUSCELLO, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 3, 1966, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 3211, subd. (a), 5), reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs.
This action, which was begun on April 26, 1964, arose out of an operation performed by defendant, a physician, upon plaintiff Virginia O. Calhoun on June 1, 1959. Substantial damages are sought for her alleged resultant personal injuries, physical pain and mental anguish. Although the complaint alleges that defendant breached his contract in that the operation was (allegedly) performed in an unfit and improper manner, it is not claimed that he agreed to do anything more than perform his common-law duty of using reasonable care and his best judgment in exercising his skill, which the law implies he represents to be such as is ordinarily possessed by physicians and surgeons in the locality (see, Kinsley v. Carravetta, 244 App.Div. 213, 279 N.Y.S. 29, affd. 273 N.Y. 559, 7 N.E.2d 691; Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N.Y. 201, 209--210, 49 N.E. 760).
Since in this case appellant's common-law duty and his alleged contractual relationship were one and the same, the suit, however labeled, is one in malpractice, at least for time limitation purposes (Golia v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 6 A.D.2d 884, 177 N.Y.S.2d 550, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 931, 197 N.Y.S.2d 735, 165 N.E.2d 578; Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 A.D.2d 874, 166 N.Y.S.2d 934, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 952, 183 N.Y.S.2d 803, 157 N.E.2d 172; Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140, 147--148, 111 N.E.2d 421, 422--423, 37 A.L.R.2d 698; cf. Robins v. Finestone, 308 N.Y. 543, 127 N.E.2d 330). Accordingly, the three-year period of limitation (CPLR 214, subd. 6 (superseding former Civ.Prac.Act, § 50, subd. 1); see, CPLR 218, subd. (b); 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 13:25, 13:79))...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney Holdings, Ltd. v. Givotovsky
...Merine v. Prudential-Bache Utility Fund, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 715, 725 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (same). 64. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Gale, 29 A.D.2d 766, 767, 287 N.Y.S.2d 710, 711 (2d Dep't), aff'd, 23 N.Y.2d 756, 244 N.E.2d 468, 296 N.Y.S.2d 953 (1968) ("Since in this case appellant's common-law duty and......
-
Paver and Wildfoerster v. Catholic High School Ass'n
...applies (see, e.g., Webber v. Herkimer & Mohawk St. R.R. Co., 109 N.Y. 311, 314--315, 16 N.E. 358, 359--360; Calhoun v. Gale, 29 A.D.2d 766, 767, 287 N.Y.S.2d 710, 711, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 756, 296 N.Y.S.2d 953, 244 N.E.2d 468; Alyssa Originals v. Finkelstein, 22 A.D.2d 701, 254 N.Y.S.2d 21, af......
-
Steiner v. Wenning
...of contract is to be ignored and the more restrictive limitation period of torts or malpractice is to be applied (see Calhoun v. Gale, 29 A.D.2d 766, 287 N.Y.S.2d 710 (as to physicians); Hurlburt v. Gillett, 96 Misc. 585, 161 N.Y.S. 994, affd. 176 App.Div. 893, 162 N.Y.S. 1124 (as to dentis......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.
...action's label. Concededly, there has been an erosion or obliteration of previously perceived distinct demarcations. In Calhoun v. Gale, 29 A.D.2d 766, 287 N.Y.S.2d 710, we held, in a medical malpractice matter, that, however denominated, a physician's common-law duty and his alleged contra......