Irizarry's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 08 January 1960 |
| Citation | 198 N.Y.S.2d 673,21 Misc.2d 1099 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE of Candido IRIZARRY, Jr. Surrogate's Court, New York County |
| Court | New York Surrogate Court |
Morris Honig, New York City, for Candido Irizarry, petitioner.
No other appearances.
JOSEPH A. COX, Surrogate.
The petitioner in this matter seeks limited letters of administration on the estate of his 'deceased infant son'. The application is made for the purpose of pursuing a cause of action for the wrongful death of the 'decedent' against the City of New York, based upon the negligence of the City, the Gouverneur Hospital, its agents, servants and employees, in failing and neglecting to receive, treat and attend the delivery of the 'decedent' from his pregnant mother, which failure and omission, it is alleged, caused the said 'decedent's' death.
The alleged facts briefly stated are these: On May 11, 1958 the mother who was in her ninth month of pregnancy and in labor sought admission to Gouverneur Hospital. The hospital refused to admit her and sent her home. On the same day and without medical attention she gave birth to the 'decedent' who, it is alleged, had life when born, survived delivery, but was dead by the time medical aid arrived.
The proof submitted by the petitioner at the hearing failed to establish that the 'decedent' had life when it was born or that it actually survived delivery. Both the attending ambulance physician and the police sergeant who responded to the emergency call testified that the 'decedent' was stillborn. The certificate on file in the Bureau of Records and Statistics of the Department of Health is a 'Certificate of Fetal Death' and sets forth that a boy fetus was delivered on May 11, 1958 at 3:40 p. m. The hospital records indicate that the fetus was dead on arrival. When examined at the hearing the attending ambulance physician admitted that his use of the word 'fetus' was inaccurate and that he should have characterized the birth as 'stillborn'. However, no testimony was adduced to support the petitioner's contention that the 'decedent' was alive when born.
The case differs somewhat from reported cases on the subject in that no prenatal injury is alleged and that the cause of action, if any, arises out of the nonfeasance and malfeasance of the hospital and its employees immediately preceding birth. Despite this difference, however, it is the opinion of this court that the question to be determined is controlled by the decision of this court in Matter of Logan's Estate, 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Endresz v. Friedberg
...547, 186 N.Y.S.2d 265, 270, 158 N.E.2d 841, 844, 845; see, also, Matter of Bradley, 50 Misc.2d 72, 269 N.Y.S.2d 657; Matter of Irizarry, 21 Misc.2d 1099, 198 N.Y.S.2d 673.) This view is held by the courts of a number of other jurisdictions 1 and, although there is authority to the contrary,......
-
Endresz v. Friedberg
...reasoning has also been followed in Matter of Estate of 'Baby Boy' Bradley, 50 Misc.2d 72, 269 N.Y.S.2d 657. See also Matter of Irizarry, 21 Misc.2d 1099, 198 N.Y.S.2d 673. This Court is impressed with the learned arguments of the plaintiffs' attorney and the apparent inconsistencies throug......