Garbowski v. Hudson Valley Hosp. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 07 June 2011
• Citation: 924 N.Y.S.2d 567,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05019,85 A.D.3d 724
• Parties: Joseph GARBOWSKI, Jr., etc., et al., appellants-respondents,v.HUDSON VALLEY HOSPITAL CENTER, et al., respondents-appellants,Michael Lasser, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 724
924 N.Y.S.2d 567
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05019

Joseph GARBOWSKI, Jr., etc., et al., appellants-respondents,
v.
HUDSON VALLEY HOSPITAL CENTER, et al., respondents-appellants,Michael Lasser, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 7, 2011.

[924 N.Y.S.2d 568]

Gash & Associates, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellants-respondents.Pilkington & Leggett, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Michael N. Romano of counsel), for respondent-appellant Hudson Valley Hospital Center.Vout`é, Lohrfink, Magro & Collins, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Joseph B. Failla of counsel), for respondents-appellants Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates and Jay Kalinsky.Gerspach Sikoscow LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alexander Sikoscow of counsel), for respondent Michael Lasser.WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[85 A.D.3d 724] In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the

[924 N.Y.S.2d 569]

Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated February 3, 2010, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates and Jay Kalinsky which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them except to the extent the complaint alleges a failure by those defendants to continually monitor the fetal heart rate during the administration of Pitocin and a failure to perform a more timely cesarean section, granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Hudson Valley Hospital Center which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it except to the extent the complaint alleges a failure by that defendant to continually monitor the fetal heart rate, and granted the motion of the defendant Michael[85 A.D.3d 725] Lasser for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, the defendant Hudson Valley Hospital Center cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it to the extent the complaint alleges a failure to continually monitor the fetal heart rate, and the defendants Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates and Jay Kalinsky separately cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them to the extent the complaint alleges a failure by those defendants to continually monitor the fetal heart rate during the administration of Pitocin and a failure to perform a more timely cesarean section.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant Michael Lasser, payable by the plaintiffs.

The defendant Jay Kalinsky and his practice, the defendant Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates (hereinafter together Dr. Kalinsky), provided prenatal treatment to the plaintiff Stephanie Garbowski during her pregnancy in 2001, which was complicated by a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. In accordance with his standard practice of treatment for patients with gestational diabetes, Dr. Kalinsky made the decision to induce labor at the defendant Hudson Valley Hospital Center (hereinafter the hospital), which involved the administration of Pitocin, a labor-inducing medication that required electronic monitoring of the fetal heart rate. During labor, a number of late decelerations in the fetal heart rate were detected, and Dr. Kalinsky made the...