Case ID: ny-st-rep_29/html/0375-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarah Martino, Resp’t, v. Cora Kirk, App'lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 10, 1890.)
    
    1. Physicians—Registry—Laws 1880, chap., 513.
    A physician is only required to register in the county where he is practicing, and when once registered his practice is legalized within the state and no new registry is needed to visit a patient out of that county.
    2. Same.
    The fact that a physician gives two days out of a week out of the county to see patients does not make a new practice in a new county unless intended as a cover for a real change of place.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    Action to recover for services as a physician.
    Defense, that plaintiff was precluded from recovering for services performed in Westchester county by her failure to register in that county.
    
      Geo. W. Stephens, for app’lt; John Andrews, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff is a physician residing in Brooklyn; the defendant lived at Mt. Vernon in Westchester county. The plaintiff made numerous visits to and treated the defendant as her physician at Mt Vernon.

The amount of the bill does not seem to be seriously disputed. The fact appears that the plaintiff was registered as a physician in Brooklyn, but was not so registered in Westchester county.

It is proven that the plaintiff advertised in the Westchester county paper that she would meet patients on certain days at Mt. Vernon where she had an office for the purpose of treating persons for diseases.

The plaintiff was under no obligation to register in Westchester county. She registered and had her office in Brooklyn. She was practicing in Kings county and duly registered there. Chapter 513, Laws of 1880, requires registry in the county where the physician is practicing or intends to commence, the practice with the “ authority for so practicing.” The practice referred to in the act is defined to be “ within the state.” The plain meaning of the law is therefore that the place of practicing is the place to register, and once registered the practice is legalized within the state. Mo new registry is needed to visit a patient out of the county. The fact that a physician gives two days in a week out of his county to see patients does not make a new practice in a new county, unless intended as a cover for a real change of place.

It is simply practicing medicine in Kings county with patients in another county. Even if the advertising an office in Westchester county was an offense the plaintiff cannot avail herself of this fact. The contract with the plaintiff was not proven to be a. W estchester contract

The plaintiff was in Brooklyn two or three times and was treated there. The other visits were received at the plaintiff’s own residence in Westchester county. She was never in the Westchester office, was never treated there, and it is not proven that the original contract came from the advertisement in Westchester county.

There is no defense to the claim proven. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N.Y.,472.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs.