From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calhoun v. Gale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1968
29 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Summary

In Calhoun v Gale (29 A.D.2d 766) we held, in a medical malpractice matter, that, however denominated, a physician's common-law duty and his alleged contractual relationship were equivalents.

Summary of this case from Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.

Opinion

February 13, 1968


Order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 3, 1966, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par 5), reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. This action, which was begun on April 26, 1964, arose out of an operation performed by defendant, a physician, upon plaintiff Virginia O. Calhoun on June 1, 1959. Substantial damages are sought for her alleged resultant personal injuries, physical pain and mental anguish. Although the complaint alleges that defendant breached his contract in that the operation was (allegedly) performed in an unfit and improper manner, it is not claimed that he agreed to do anything more than perform his common-law duty of using reasonable care and his best judgment in exercising his skill, which the law implies he represents to be such as is ordinarily possessed by physicians and surgeons in the locality (see, Kinsley v. Carravetta, 244 App. Div. 213, affd. 273 N.Y. 559; Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N.Y. 201, 209-210). Since in this case appellant's common-law duty and his alleged contractual relationship were one and the same, the suit, however labeled, is one in malpractice, at least for time limitation purposes ( Golia v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 6 A.D.2d 884, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 931; Gautieri v. New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 A.D.2d 874, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 952; Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140, 147-148; cf. Robins v. Finestone, 308 N.Y. 543). Accordingly, the three-year period of limitation (CPLR 214, subd. 6 [superseding former Civ. Prac. Act, § 50, subd. 1]; see CPLR 218, subd. [b]; 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, §§ 13:25, 13:79) applies. Christ, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Calhoun v. Gale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1968
29 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

In Calhoun v Gale (29 A.D.2d 766) we held, in a medical malpractice matter, that, however denominated, a physician's common-law duty and his alleged contractual relationship were equivalents.

Summary of this case from Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.
Case details for

Calhoun v. Gale

Case Details

Full title:VIRGINIA O. CALHOUN et al., Respondents, v. JULIUS P. GALE, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 13, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Paver

To be sure, it has been said that the law in this State, in applying the Statute of Limitations, will look to…

Whitney Holdings, Ltd. v. Givotovsky

See Raul v. American Stock Exchange, 1996 WL 381781 (claim by stock exchange member against exchange);…