Opinion
2002-06464
Argued May 1, 2003.
May 19, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 10, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Nixon Peabody, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (James Fabian, Christopher J. Porzio, and Michael Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
Robert G. Spevack, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff's causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract are based on the medical staff bylaws of the defendant Central Suffolk Hospital. While medical staff bylaws qualify as the foundation for such claims (see Falk v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Jamaica, 228 A.D.2d 326, 329; Chuz v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 186 A.D.2d 450, 451; Saha v. Record, 177 A.D.2d 763, 764; Giannelli v. St. Vincent's Hosp. and Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 160 A.D.2d 227, 232), the plaintiff was damaged by the revocation of his privilege to perform laparoscopic procedures, not by the alleged violation of one or more of the hospital's unspecified bylaws (compare Wasserman v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 268 A.D.2d 425, 426; and Chime v. Sicuranza, 221 A.D.2d 401, 402; with Giordano v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 273 A.D.2d 353, 354, and Moallem v. Jamaica Hosp., 264 A.D.2d 621, 622). The bylaws give him no right to such privilege (see Leider v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 11 N.Y.2d 205, 208-209; Chuz v. St. Vincent's Hosp., supra; Saha v. Record, supra).
In addition, no claim to recover damages at common law arises from a hospital's wrongful denial of staff privileges (see Moallem v. Jamaica Hosp., supra; Farooq v. Fillmore Hosp., 172 A.D.2d 1063). To remedy such a wrong, a physician is limited to an action for an injunction under Public Health Law § 2801-c (see Moallem v. Jamaica Hosp., supra; Falk v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Jamaica, supra at 329-330; Chuz v. St. Vincent's Hosp., supra; Farooq v. Fillmore Hosp., supra; see also Gelbard v. Genesee Hosp., 87 N.Y.2d 691, 698).
Thus, where the claim of a violation of the bylaws is secondary and the gravamen of the plaintiff's grievance is the suspension of his privileges, his causes of action alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with that contract are barred (see Giordano v. Victory Mem. Hosp., supra; Falk v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Jamaica, supra).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.