Spindell v. Brooklyn Jewish Hospital
| Decision Date | 05 January 1972 |
| Citation | 328 N.Y.S.2d 678,29 N.Y.2d 888 |
| Parties | , 278 N.E.2d 912 Molly SPINDELL, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN JEWISH HOSPITAL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 35 A.D.2d 962, 317 N.Y.S.2d 963.
An action was brought for malpractice. The Supreme Court, Kings County, entered an order granting motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of res judicata and denying cross motion to dismiss complaint on grounds of res judicata. The defendant hospital appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed and denied motion to dismiss the affirmative defense and granted motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that where plaintiff in prior malpractice action defaulted on a motion to dismiss which was made on ground that action was barred by limitation and judgment was entered on default and plaintiff never moved to set the same aside, such determination became law of case and barred subsequent action on the same cause. The plaintiff appealed.
Order affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VanMinos v. Merkley
...'as to the point it decided' (Spindell v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 35 A.D.2d 962, 963, 317 N.Y.S.2d 963, 964, affd., 29 N.Y.2d 888, 328 N.Y.S.2d 678, 278 N.E.2d 912). Since the second complaint alleges grounds for indemnity not contained in the first complaint, dismissal of that complaint, no......
-
Bray v. New York Life Ins., 1183
... ... See Spindell v. Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, 35 A.D.2d 962, 962-63, 317 N.Y.S.2d 963, 965 ... ...
-
Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Friedler, 1
...only "as to the point it decided" (Spindell v. Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, 35 A.D.2d 962, 963, 317 N.Y.S.2d 963, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 888, 328 N.Y.S.2d 678, 278 N.E.2d 912). The present complaint is not a mere restatement (see Flynn v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 20 A.D.2d 636, 246 N.Y.S.2d 360, affd. 14 ......
-
Slater v. American Mineral Spirits Co.
...not to be disturbed by a subsequent change in decisional law. (Spindell v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 35 A.D.2d 962, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 888, 328 N.Y.S.2d 678, 278 N.E.2d 912; cf. Matter of Huie (Furman), 20 N.Y.2d 568, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d Deeves v. Fabric Fire Hose Co., 14 N.Y.2d 633, 249......