Kowalski v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers

Pigott, J. (dissenting).

I would reverse on two grounds: the first based upon the Appellate Division’s erroneous holding that *487the Mental Hygiene Law is implicated here, and the second based upon what I view as defendants’ common-law duty to plaintiff.

With respect to the Appellate Division’s analysis, it is clear that article 22 of the Mental Hygiene Law does not apply. Article 22, entitled “Chemical Dependence Programs, Treatment Facilities, and Services,” is primarily addressed to an entirely different category of medical providers, not general hospitals, with a limited exception for…