From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petty v. North General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 25, 2003
1 A.D.3d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2315.

November 25, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered December 3, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent security company's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action for false imprisonment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jaha C. Smith for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard P. Marin for Defendant-Respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.


Plaintiff, who was among several individuals asked by a security guard to submit to a strip search before receiving treatment at defendant hospital, failed to establish the guard's intention to confine him, an essential element of the tort of false imprisonment (Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v. Kellogg, 423 U.S. 929). The fact that plaintiff was a vulnerable consumer in need of hospital services may have created a coercive situation in his mind, but he does not allege, nor is there any evidence, that he was prevented from leaving the premises (see Arrington v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 267).


Summaries of

Petty v. North General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 25, 2003
1 A.D.3d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Petty v. North General Hospital

Case Details

Full title:LUTHER PETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant…

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

Date published: Nov 25, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 590

Citing Cases

Schumacher v. Antiquorum U.S., Inc.

However, there is no evidence to show that defendants intended to confine plaintiff, nor that defendants did…

Labua v. Parsons Brinckerhoff

Assuming arguendo the veracity of plaintiff's version of events, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to…