Kroupa v. Southampton Hospital
| Decision Date | 20 October 1975 |
| Citation | 374 N.Y.S.2d 37,49 A.D.2d 926 |
| Parties | Steven B. KROUPA, an infant, etc., Plaintiff, and Bernard Kroupa, Appellant, v. SOUTHAMPTON HOSPITAL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., Mineola, of counsel), for appellant.
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, MARGETT, CHRIST and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., plaintiff Bernard Kroupa, the father of the infant plaintiff, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 8, 1975, which denied his motion to dismiss the counterclaim for indemnity asserted in defendant's amended answer.
Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and counterclaim dismissed.
The malpractice resulting in the infant plaintiff's injuries is alleged to have been defendant's failure to properly diagnose the illness from which he was suffering when he was brought to the emergency room of the defendant hospital on May 7, 1972 suffering violent stomach pains and nausea. It is further alleged that, as a result of that negligence, and defendant's further negligence in discharging him from the hospital on that day, he suffered, among other serious injuries, a ruptured appendix requiring his readmission to the defendant ant hospital in a critical condition on May 17, 1972.
Defendant, in its amended answer, has alleged in a counterclaim against plaintiff Bernard Kroupa, that he is barred from any recovery because he sought no medical aid for the infant plaintiff from May 7, 1972 until May 17, 1972, when the infant plaintiff was readmitted to the defendant hospital. Further, defendant requests, in the event it is found negligent, that it be indemnified by plaintiff Bernard Kroupa.
Even if Bernard Kroupa did not properly exercise his parental discretion in failing to seek medical aid for the infant plaintiff after defendant discharged him from its hospital on May 7, 1972 and until defendant readmitted him on May 17, 1972, there is no recognizable tort action which the infant has against his father which defendant may assert as a bar to its liability or as a basis for indemnification from plaintiff Bernard Kroupa on the authority of Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382, 282 N.E.2d 288. (Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 44, 51, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859, 865, 871, 324 N.E.2d 338, 342, 346; Ryan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hlavinka by Hlavinka v. Slovak Sky Bungalow Colony
...(Reale v. Herco Inc., 183 A.D.2d 163, 168, 589 N.Y.S.2d 502; Russo v. Osofsky, 112 A.D.2d 926, 492 N.Y.S.2d 623; Kroupa v. Southampton Hosp., 49 A.D.2d 926, 927, 374 N.Y.S.2d 37). The first two claims in the third-party complaint fall squarely within this rule, clearly failing to state a co......
-
Russo v. Osofsky
...parent's failure to supervise that infant (Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332, 413 N.Y.S.2d 340, 385 N.E.2d 1268; Kroupa v. Southampton Hosp., 49 A.D.2d 926, 374 N.Y.S.2d 37). Therefore, the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider whether the plaintiff mother negligently super......
-
Berger by Berger v. City of New York
...v. Herco, Inc., 183 A.D.2d 163, 168, 589 N.Y.S.2d 502; Russo v. Osofsky, 112 A.D.2d 926, 492 N.Y.S.2d 623; Kroupa v. Southampton Hosp., 49 A.D.2d 926, 927, 374 N.Y.S.2d 37). Hlavinka v. Slovak Sky Bungalow Colony, 203 A.D.2d 855, 856, 611 N.Y.S.2d 335 (3rd Dept., 1994) Defendant, on the oth......