From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1997
241 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 1, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).


A fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v. Clowes, 224 A.D.2d 312) supports the trial court's credibility determination that defendant's reasons for terminating plaintiff's residency, primarily clinical incompetence, were not a pretext for retaliation motivated by her complaints of illegally excessive hours in violation of 10 NYCRR 405.4 (b) (6). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish an actual violation of the regulation necessary to sustain a cause of action under Labor Law § 740 ( Bordell v. General Elec. Co., 88 N.Y.2d 869). We have considered plaintiff's remaining claims of breach of contract and exclusion of relevant evidence and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1997
241 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Hookman v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Case Details

Full title:WENDY J. HOOKMAN, Appellant, v. LENOX HILL HOSPITAL, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 36

Citing Cases

Vosatka v. Columbia University

" New York courts have consistently held that "a cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 740 requires proof…

Lukose v. Long Island Med. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C.

Moreover, the defendants also submitted evidence establishing, as a matter of law, that they did not violate…