Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital
| Decision Date | 18 January 1982 |
| Parties | Marie FERRIGNO et al., Respondents, v. ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., and Jennifer Pirro Hurley, Mineola, of counsel), for appellant.
Before MOLLEN, P. J., and LAZER, COHALAN and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, defendant St. Charles Hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 30, 1981, which (1) denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion, and (2) granted plaintiffs' cross motion to the extent of relieving them of their default and granting them leave to serve a bill of particulars, upon condition that plaintiffs' attorney pay to appellant $500.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the cross motion is denied.
The bill of particulars was demanded on February 14, 1980. In the absence of a response, appellant moved for an order of preclusion. A 20-day conditional order of preclusion was granted on June 9, 1980. This order was disregarded until plaintiffs belatedly furnished a bill of particulars as part of their opposition to appellant's motion to dismiss, some nine months after the bill was originally due and four and one-half months beyond the time fixed by the court order. It was an abuse of discretion to have denied appellant's motion since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the delay and (2) the legal merits of their claim (see Harris v. Brooklyn Hosp. at Brooklyn Cumberland Med. Center, 81 A.D.2d 658, 438 N.Y.S.2d 370; Kahn v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 60 A.D.2d 862, 401 N.Y.S.2d 253). The proffered excuse, that the delay was due to a filing or clerical error, can only be characterized as "law office failure," which is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support plaintiffs' cross motion (see Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d 1275; Verre v. Rosas, 47 N.Y.2d 795, 417 N.Y.S.2d 929, 391 N.E.2d 1010). Moreover, the conclusory affirmation of plaintiffs' attorney is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim (see Wolfe v. Town of Hempstead Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 75 A.D.2d 811, 427 N.Y.S.2d 490); instead, evidentiary facts should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suggs v. Hrabb
...900, 453 N.Y.S.2d 404, 438 N.E.2d 1119; Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d 1275; Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital, 86 A.D.2d 594, 446 N.Y.S.2d 130; Berkowitz v. Futernick, 84 A.D.2d 825, 444 N.Y.S.2d 195; Batista v. St. Luke's Hosp., 46 A.D.2d 806, 361 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Gass v. Gass
...North Shore Univ. Hosp., 91 A.D.2d 967, 457 N.Y.S.2d 336, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 748, 463 N.Y.S.2d 442, 450 N.E.2d 248; Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hosp., 86 A.D.2d 594, 446 N.Y.S.2d 130; Harris v. Brooklyn Hosp., 81 A.D.2d 658, 438 N.Y.S.2d 370). The excuses offered by the defaulting party (i.e., sub......
-
Vernon v. Nassau County Medical Center
...of New York, 99 A.D.2d 481, 470 N.Y.S.2d 420; Berman v. Brunswick Hosp. Center, 94 A.D.2d 736, 462 N.Y.S.2d 485; Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hosp., 86 A.D.2d 594, 446 N.Y.S.2d 130; Sussman v. Franklin Gen. Hosp., 77 A.D.2d 567, 429 N.Y.S.2d 729). In the absence of such an affidavit, Special Ter......
-
Warner v. Kudler
...of New York, 99 A.D.2d 481, 470 N.Y.S.2d 420; Berman v. Brunswick Hosp. Center, 94 A.D.2d 736, 462 N.Y.S.2d 485; Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hosp., 86 A.D.2d 594, 446 N.Y.S.2d 130; Sussman v. Franklin Gen. Hosp., 77 A.D.2d 567, 429 N.Y.S.2d 729; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25, 32, 245 N.Y.S.2d......