Adams v. Agrawal
Decision Date | 25 November 1992 |
Citation | 187 A.D.2d 886,590 N.Y.S.2d 545 |
Parties | Charles ADAMS et al., Appellants, v. Ram AGRAWAL et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James C. Straney, Latham, for appellants.
Carter, Conboy, Bardwell, Case, Blackmore & Napierski (Shirley L. Clouser, of counsel), for Ram Agrawal and another, respondents.
Maynard, O'Connor & Smith (Christine K. Krackeler, of counsel), Albany, for Albany Medical Center Hosp. and others, respondents.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and CASEY, JJ.
Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court (Keniry, J.), entered October 24, 1991 in Rensselaer County, which, inter alia granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve the complaint and for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs concede that defendant Ram Agrawal was not served with a summons and that the action against him should therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As to the remaining four defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants), the record indicates that after being served with the summons, each promptly served a notice of appearance upon plaintiffs and demanded service of the complaint. Plaintiffs, however, neglected to serve the complaint within the 20-day period allowed by CPLR 3012(b) and, as a result, defendants moved to dismiss for, inter alia, plaintiffs' failure to timely serve the complaint. Plaintiffs then cross-moved for leave to serve a late complaint. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' cross motion and granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that although plaintiffs had demonstrated a satisfactory excuse for the delay, they failed to meet their additional burden of demonstrating that this medical malpractice action has merit. Plaintiffs now appeal, contending that their own affidavits establish that this action has merit.
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint, plaintiffs must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 599, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d 1275). In order to establish merit in a medical malpractice action such as this, expert medical opinion evidence is required as to matters not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypeople (see, Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188; Tierney v. OB-GYN Assocs. of Ithaca, 186 A.D.2d 926, 588 N.Y.S.2d 950). To the extent that such evidence is supplied in the form of a physician's affidavit of merit, the affidavit must be made by one with personal knowledge of the facts (see, Barasch v. Micucci, supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 599, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d 1275) and allege that the defendant's actions not only departed from accepted medical standards, but that such departure was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged in the complaint (see, Dorgan v. Dunda, 165 A.D.2d 949, 561 N.Y.S.2d 110).
Here, plaintiff Charles Adams submitted an affidavit in which he averred that he was told by defendant Theodore L. Biddle that "they had injected too much dye in [him] and that it damaged [his] kidneys". Plaintiff Mary Adams averred that she had a similar conversation with Biddle. Although we agree that this hearsay statement is insufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss brought by defendants Joseph B. McIlduff, Julio A. Sosa and Albany Medical Center Hospital (compare, Siegel v. Wank, 183 A.D.2d 158, 161, 589 N.Y.S.2d 934, 936-37), the statement is plainly admissible against Biddle as a party admission (see generally, Iannielli v. Consolidated Edison Co., 75 A.D.2d 223, 228, 428 N.Y.S.2d 473; Matter of Shephard v. Ambach, 68 A.D.2d 984, 985, 414...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marcello v. Flecher
...26 A.D.3d 705, 706, 810 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2006] ; Ault v. Richman, 299 A.D.2d 613, 614, 748 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2002] ; Adams v. Agrawal, 187 A.D.2d 886, 887, 590 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1992] ). Here, plaintiff's proffered excuse for the delay in serving the complaint was that he was awaiting review of his me......
-
Truppi v. Busciglio
...Pawlowski, 292 A.D.2d 856, 857, 738 N.Y.S.2d 805 [2002]; Ede v. Ede, 193 A.D.2d 940, 941, 598 N.Y.S.2d 90 [1993]; Adams v. Agrawal, 187 A.D.2d 886, 887, 590 N.Y.S.2d 545 [1992]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence §§ 8-201, 8-203 [Farrell 11th ed.] ). Thus, Supreme Court correctly found that the......
-
Redding v. Saunders
...medical opinion evidence is required as to matters not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypeople" (Adams v. Agrawal, 187 A.D.2d 886, 887, 590 N.Y.S.2d 545; see also, Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 1001, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188). Whether defendant was negligent in fa......
-
McKenzie v. Jack D. Weiler Hosp.
...based on the conduct of non-moving defendant Dr. Gary Goldberg for, inter alia, lack of informed consent (see Adams v. Agrawal, 187 A.D.2d 886, 887, 590 N.Y.S.2d 545 [3d Dept. 1992] ; cf. Marcello v. Flecher, 150 A.D.3d 1457, 1459–1460, 55 N.Y.S.3d 488 [3d Dept. 2017] ["there indeed are lim......