The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Torrillo v. Cherny, affecting a medical malpractice lawsuit involving the estate of Josephine Torrillo. The court's decision, issued on July 24, 2026, modifies a previous ruling regarding claims of vicarious liability against a medical practice. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the extent to which medical practices can be held responsible for the actions of their employees.
The case centers around Ralph A. Torrillo, Sr., who is the executor of the estate of his late mother, Josephine A. Torrillo. After Josephine underwent surgery, she sustained injuries that ultimately led to her death. Ralph Torrillo filed a lawsuit against Dr. Richard C. Cherny and his practice, Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, P.C., along with another physician, Dr. Santo M. DiFino. The lawsuit claims that medical malpractice contributed to Josephine's injuries and subsequent death.
The dispute escalated to the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Onondaga County made a ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing they were not liable for the alleged malpractice. The Supreme Court granted part of their motion but denied it in other respects, prompting the appeal.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division modified the earlier decision. The court agreed with the defendants that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the claim of vicarious liability against Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, P.C. The court stated, "We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, insofar as it asserts that HOA is vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of DiFino." This modification means that the medical practice will not be held responsible for the actions of Dr. DiFino in this case.
The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Curran, Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, and Hannah. The decision is significant as it sets a precedent regarding the liability of medical practices for the actions of their staff. By clarifying the limits of vicarious liability in medical malpractice cases, the court's ruling may influence future cases involving similar claims.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It affects how medical practices manage their liability and could change how patients approach legal action in cases of alleged malpractice. The decision may lead to more scrutiny of the relationships between medical practices and their employees, particularly regarding the responsibilities and liabilities that arise from their professional actions.
Moving forward, the ruling in Torrillo v. Cherny may be appealed to a higher court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. This case highlights the complexities of medical malpractice law and the ongoing discussions about accountability in the healthcare system.