Ruane v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 19 February 1987 |
| Citation | 127 A.D.2d 524,512 N.Y.S.2d 38 |
| Parties | James RUANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas COOPER, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A.J. Wulwick, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
K.R. Perry and G. Van Setter, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, MILONAS and KASSAL, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anthony Mercorella, J.), entered January 30, 1984 which granted the motion of defendants-respondents Drs. Cooper and Waltz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them on Statute of Limitations grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff-appellant James Ruane is 36 years old and has suffered from cerebral palsy since birth. Nevertheless, he managed to work and also to walk short distances with the aid of crutches. In 1975, Mr. Ruane heard about the technique of implanting electrodes in the brain to stimulate the cerebellar cortex in people with cerebral palsy. He contacted respondent Dr. Cooper's office. Dr. Cooper invented the technique and was director of the Institute of Neuroscience. Mr. Ruane met with Dr. Cooper and respondent Dr. Amin. Later, in April 1976, Dr. Amin implanted the electrodes. In July 1977, Mr. Ruane went back to Dr. Amin who checked the implanted equipment. Dr. Amin determined a second operation was necessary. In February 1978, Dr. Amin performed the second operation. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Ruane alleges, hydrocephalus--a build up of water on the brain--occurred. As a result, Mr. Ruane claims, he is permanently confined to a wheelchair and lost total vision in his left eye.
Drs. Cooper and Amin and the third respondent, Dr. Waltz, were the senior doctors at the Institute of Neuroscience. This case centers on whether the three doctors, practicing at the Institute of Neuroscience, held themselves out to the public as a joint venture. If they did, then the doctors could be estopped from claiming that each was an independent contractor responsible only for his own torts. This has relevance because Mr. Ruane claims his timely service of a summons and complaint on Dr. Amin also constitutes timely service on Drs. Cooper and Waltz. Special Term found that defendants Cooper, Waltz and Amin were not sufficiently united in interest such that timely service on one constituted timely service on all. We find that questions of fact exist and that summary judgment was not warranted and, therefore, we reverse.
The record indicates that (1) Mr. Ruane was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vojtech Blau, Inc. v. Sara
...N.Y.2d 694, 697, 512 N.Y.S.2d 22, 504 N.E.2d 389; Compare Connell v. Hayden, 83 A.D.2d 30, 45, 443 N.Y.S.2d 383 with Ruane v. Cooper, 127 A.D.2d 524, 525, 512 N.Y.S.2d 38, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 693, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 512 N.E.2d 555, and Bari v. Wamskau Realty, 99 A.D.2d 710, 711, 472 ......
-
Fogel v. Hertz Intern., Ltd.
...a holding out to the public which would estop them from disclaiming responsibility for Hertz Italiana's negligence. See, Ruane v. Cooper, 127 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 38. Further material issues of fact are whether the Hertz defendants acted in good faith in their advertising campaign, and ......
-
Doherty v. Hellman
...physicians to the defendant, the director of the joint venture. The New York opinions do not help the plaintiff. In Ruane v. Cooper, 127 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 38 (1987), three doctors practicing at the Institute of Neuroscience allegedly held themselves out to the public as a joint ventu......
-
Banks v. Hanson Place Dental Associates
...without costs or disbursements. There are questions of fact as to whether the defendants were "united in interest" (see, Ruane v. Cooper, 127 A.D.2d 524, 512 N.Y.S.2d 38; Lanza v. Parkeast Hosp., 102 A.D.2d 741, 476 N.Y.S.2d 576). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have granted the pla......