Macari v. Parsons Hospital
| Decision Date | 27 June 1966 |
| Citation | 26 A.D.2d 584,271 N.Y.S.2d 1009 |
| Parties | William J. MACARI, Plaintiff, v. PARSONS HOSPITAL, Appellant, Dr. Theodore Pessar et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CHRIST, Acting P.J., and RABIN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages Inter alia for medical malpractice, defendant Parsons Hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 25, 1966, which denied its motion to amend its answer so as to assert a cross-claim against the three defendant physicians (CPLR 3011, 3025).
Order reversed and motion granted, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. The proposed amended answer (containing the cross-claim) printed in the record on appeal shall be deemed to have been served as the defendant hospital's second amended answer; the time to answer the cross-claim is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.
In our opinion, the cross-claim sufficiently alleges a claim of common-law indemnity against the defendant physicians. If plaintiff recovers damages against the defendant hospital based on the negligence of the defendant physicians as its servants, the hospital would be entitled to indemnification (Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 143 N.E.2d 3; Opper v. Tripp Lake Estates, 274 App.Div. 422, 84 N.Y.S.2d 461, affd. 300 N.Y. 572, 89 N.E.2d 527; Hollant v. North Shore Hospital, Inc., 24 Misc.2d 892, 206 N.Y.S.2d 177, affd. 17 A.D.2d 974, 235 N.Y.S.2d 372). Plaintiff's complaint contains allegations both of active and passive negligence on the part of the defendant hospital. Prior to trial it cannot be foretold upon which theory of negligence plaintiff may recover. Consequently, the sufficiency of the cross-claim can best be determined at the trial (Lipsman v. Warren, 10 A.D.2d 868, 199 N.Y.S.2d 761; Donnelly v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 21 A.D.2d 740, 250 N.Y.S.2d 90).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hytko v. Hennessey
...McDermott v City of New York, 50 NY2d 211, 218 n 4 [1980]; Ditingo v Dreyfuss, 27 AD3d 1024, 1026-1027 [2006]; see also Macari v Parsons Hosp., 26 AD2d 584, 584 [1966]). Here, plaintiff brought an action against both OB/GYN and Szary, among others. Although plaintiff subsequently settled wi......
-
Seven Sixty Travel, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
...presently is to take an illustrative example of indemnification, and contrast it with the situation at bar. In Macari v. Parsons Hospital, 26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (Case No. 12) the court permitted the amendment of an answer to include a cross claim by the defendant, hospital, to al......
-
Bleiler v. Bodnar
... ... BLEILER, Sr., et al., Respondents, ... Roman BODNAR et al., Defendants; ... Tioga General Hospital, Appellant ... Court of Appeals of New York ... May 2, 1985 ... Roy E ... Putnam Community Hosp., 65 A.D.2d 767, 409 N.Y.S.2d 785; Macari v ... Parsons Hosp., 26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009) ... A hospital can ... ...
-
Magwood v. Jewish Hospital and Medical Center of Brooklyn
...of the appellate courts make it clear that it is the hospital that is the beneficiary of this principle. See Macari v. Parsons Hospital et al., 26 A.D.2d 584, 271 N.Y.S.2d 1009, where the Appellate Division, Second Department, stated, "If plaintiff recovers damages against the defendant hos......