Court Opinion

ID: 9816192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 02:43:52.63912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:04.502864
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Duffs y, P. J.
Plaintiff has filed a motion and brief for rehearing on the decision of this court dated April 25, 1961. Plaintiff contends that the New York limitation for loss of consortium arising from the malpractice is controlled by the New York malpractice statute. New York Civil Practice Act, Section 50.
*256Plaintiff may be entirely correct. However, tbe New York statutes do not explicitly prescribe tbe limitation on actions for loss of consortium arising from malpractice. In view of Corpman v. Boyer (1960), 171 Ohio St., 233, we cannot on demurrer hold that the New York malpractice statute applies. While the principal opinion does state that the action was not controlled by the malpractice statute, that statement must be considered in the context of the present appeal. If on remand plaintiff can, in a proper manner, establish a two-year limitation under New York law, he would then be entitled to a determination denying appellant any affirmative relief.
In making reference to Section 49 of the New York Civil Practice Act, and to several New York cases, the principal opinion did not purport to determine and, on the record, could not determine what the New York law is. The references were made to call attention to the ambiguity of the statutes.
The motion for rehearing is denied.

Motion denied.

Bryant and Duety, JJ., concur.