Pollicina v. Misericordia Hospital Medical Center, 82 N.Y.2d 333 (1993)
r
r
The Supreme Court, not the Surrogate’s Court, retains primary jurisdiction to approve settlements in wrongful death actions, and General Obligations Law § 15-108(a) applies to settlements with parties claimed to be liable, even if later exonerated.
r
r
Summary
r
In a medical malpractice wrongful death action, the plaintiff received a judgment against the non-settling defendant, Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Einstein). Multiple defendants had settled prior to judgment. The primary issue was how to calculate the General Obligations Law § 15-108(a) setoff. The court addressed whether Surrogate’s Court approval was necessary to finalize the settlements. The Court of Appeals held that Supreme Court has primary authority to approve wrongful death settlements and outlined the proper application of the setoff, including settlements from parties later found not liable.
r
r
Facts
r
The plaintiff brought a wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice. Before the verdict, several defendants settled: Drs. Mancuso and Allen settled for $1.1 million, Dr. Sandor for $650,000, and Misericordia Hospital Medical Center for $50,000. Einstein remained the sole non-settling defendant. The jury apportioned fault: 25% to Einstein ($550,000), 25% to Drs. Mancuso/Allen ($550,000), and 50% to Dr. Sandor ($1,100,000). Misericordia was found to have no liability.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The case proceeded to trial against Einstein. After a jury verdict and apportionment of fault, a dispute arose regarding the application of General Obligations Law § 15-108(a). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury’s apportionment of fault. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the method for calculating the setoff and the necessity of Surrogate Court approval for the settlements.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether General Obligations Law § 15-108(a) applies when settling defendants lacked formal releases at the time of judgment?r
2. Whether Surrogate’s Court approval is required to finalize settlements in wrongful death actions before General Obligations Law § 15-108(a) applies?r
3. How should the General Obligations Law § 15-108(a) setoff be calculated when multiple defendants settle for varying amounts and one settling defendant is later found not liable?
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because a settlement memorialized in open court that effectively terminates the action against the settling defendants is sufficient to invoke General Obligations Law § 15-108(a).r
2. No, because EPTL 5-4.6 confers the power of approval upon the court where the wrongful death action is pending, which is typically the Supreme Court, and because the Supreme Court has general original jurisdiction.r
3. The setoff should be calculated using the aggregate method, deducting the total of all settlements (including those from parties later found not liable) if that total exceeds the total of the apportioned shares of the settling defendants.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals held that formal releases were not required at the time of judgment, as the settlements were effectively finalized. Addressing the Surrogate’s Court approval, the court emphasized that EPTL 5-4.6 grants approval power to the court where the action is pending, usually the Supreme Court. The 1992 amendments were intended to allow the Supreme Court to transfer the case to Surrogate’s Court for the limited purpose of administering the proceeds of an approved settlement but not to require it. The court cited Article VI, § 7(a) of the State Constitution, stating the Supreme Court “shall have general original jurisdiction in law and equity.” The court cited Matter of Malloy, 278 N.Y. 429, 432 stating “The Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction…The Legislature cannot by statute deprive it of one particle of its jurisdiction, derived from the Constitution.”r
r
As for the setoff calculation, the Court adopted the aggregate approach, referencing its companion cases. The Court stated,