From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conti v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 2005
22 A.D.3d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6775.

October 18, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered on or about January 24, 2005, which, in an action for legal malpractice, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Edward J. Greenfield, New York, for appellants.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker LLP, New York (Wendy Beth Shepps of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.


There appears to be no dispute that plaintiff would have no cause of action for legal malpractice based on defendant's failure to commence a timely action against a physician who treated plaintiff if, at the time of the alleged medical malpractice, such physician were an employee of the hospital against which defendant did commence a timely action. If so, then any medical malpractice committed by the physician would have been imputable to the hospital ( see Hill v. St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 78-79), against which plaintiff could have recovered all of her damages, negating any "but for" causation between those damages and defendant's failure to sue the physician ( see Reibman v. Senie, 302 AD2d 290, 290). No issue of fact exists as to the existence of such an employment relationship, which on these facts is dispositive.


Summaries of

Conti v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 2005
22 A.D.3d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Conti v. Frank

Case Details

Full title:JULIE CONTI et al., Appellants, v. RICHARD FRANK, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 18, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7615
801 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP

Defendants, on the other hand, do not conclusively demonstrate that suing Compex and Huffy Service First…

McGivney v. Sobel, Ross, Fliegel & Suss, LLP

Defendants, on the other hand, do not conclusively demonstrate that suing Compex and Huffy Service First…