From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cavezza v. Gardner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant-respondent.

From 1967 until 1979, Josephine DiMarco, M.D., and Roslyn Gardner, M.D., practiced obstetrics together at the same office in Queens, New York. The infant plaintiff, who was delivered by DiMarco, brought this action against DiMarco and Gardner both individually and as partners. Gardner successfully moved for dismissal of the causes of action asserted against her individually; however, the court refused, and correctly so, to dismiss the causes of action asserted against her grounded in her alleged vicarious liability as DiMarco's partner.

While many of the indicia of a partnership between Gardner and DiMarco do not appear to exist, the affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to Gardner's motion present conflicting evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact as to the existence of either a partnership in fact or a partnership by estoppel and, therefore, summary judgment was correctly denied (see, Royal Bank Trust Co. v. Weintraub, Gold Alper, 68 N.Y.2d 124; Ahmad v. Ennab, 158 A.D.2d 637; Mayland v Craighead, 144 A.D.2d 344; Fogel v. Hertz Intl., 141 A.D.2d 375; Brodsky v. Stadlen, 138 A.D.2d 662; Fanelli v. Adler, 131 A.D.2d 631; Boyarsky v. Froccaro, 131 A.D.2d 710). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cavezza v. Gardner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Cavezza v. Gardner

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA CAVEZZA et al., Respondents, v. ROSLYN GARDNER, Appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 28, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 525

Citing Cases

Kimiatek v. Post

Under these circumstances, we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether the continuous treatment…

Hardter v. Semel

We reject the contention of Dr. Tyler that his opinion testimony cannot be compelled because he was not an…