omitted). In the instant case, there was no relationship between Kennedy Medical and plaintiff. Therefore, the question becomes whether, by appearing and requesting treatment, Montanya created a special relationship between himself and Kennedy Medical such that Kennedy Medical had a sufficient ability to control Montanya’s conduct, rendering it duty-bound to protect plaintiff, a member of the general public, from injury directly caused by Montanya. As a private medical practice, Kennedy Medical had no obligation to provide Montanya with medical treatment even if he presented valid insurance. Generally, “[p]hysicians ... are not bound to serve all who seek their services.” 84 N.Y.Jur.2d Physicians § 7 (1990); cf., Ingber v. Kandler, 128 A.D.2d 591, 513 N.Y.S.2d 11 (2d Dep’t 1987) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, given the fact that there was no
holding that no physicianpatient relationship between doctor who gave informal opinion over telephone at request of treating physician and minor patient whose case was discussed and thus doctor did not owe duty of care to patient holding that obstetrician who consulted with patients treating physician by telephone was not in physicianpatient relationship and therefore owed no duty to patient obstetrician did no more than answer professional inquiry of colleague and did not contact examine or treat patient holding that a question of fact existed regarding whether the hospital held the doctor out as its agent if the hospital provided the doctor without explicitly informing the patient that the doctor was not its employee holding that where doctor never had contact with patient nor reviewed patients records no relationship existed so as to trigger a duty holding no abuse of discretion where judge had personal relationship with government witnesses but had not had contact with them for over ten years