Brook v. Peconic Bay Med. Ctr.

181 N.Y.S.3d 884 (Mem)

Adam BROOK, M.D., Ph.D., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.PECONIC BAY MEDICAL CENTER et al., Defendants–Respondents.

16983

Index No. 650921/12

Case No. 2021–04613

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered February 9, 2023

Adam Brook, M.D., Ph.D, appellant pro se.

Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (William Thomashower of counsel), for Adam Brook, M.D., Ph.D., P.L.L.C., appellant.

Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck (Leonard M. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondents.

Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Pitt–Burke, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 14, 2021, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the breach of contract claim was proper. There is no evidence that a "corrective action" was contemplated prior to plaintiff's resignation; as such, the relevant contractual notice provisions were never triggered.

Dismissal of the fraud, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims was also proper. Plaintiff's purported reliance on a representation that defendants would not investigate the subject surgical incident, notwithstanding their legal obligation to do so, was not justifiable as a matter of law (see Public Health Law § 2805–l[2][a], [4] ; Michael R. Gianatasio, PE, P.C. v. City of New York, 53 Misc.3d 757, 775, 37 N.Y.S.3d 828 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2016], affd 159 A.D.3d 659, 70 N.Y.S.3d 834 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Merrick Gables Assn. v. Town of Hempstead, 691 F.Supp.2d 355, 363 [E.D. N.Y.2010] ; see also PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 929 F.3d 79, 94–95 [2d Cir.2019] ).

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a job offer that would have been extended to him but for defendant's conduct; accordingly, the claim alleging tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was properly dismissed (see Murphy v. City of New York, 59 A.D.3d 301, 301, 874 N.Y.S.2d 407 [1st Dept. 2009] ; Carl v. Cohen, 55 A.D.3d 478, 868 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept. 2008] ).

We decline to consider plaintiffs’ argument that summary judgment in defendants’ favor should have been precluded based on the prior award of an adverse inference against them because it was not squarely raised before the motion court (see Brook v. Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31728[U], 2017 WL 3506818 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2017],...