Garcia v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp.
| Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Parties | Michael GARCIA, respondent, v. NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH FOREST HILLS HOSPITAL, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 644
949 N.Y.S.2d 781
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06010
Michael GARCIA, respondent,
v.
NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH FOREST HILLS HOSPITAL, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 22, 2012.
[949 N.Y.S.2d 782]
Shaub Ahmuty Citrin & Spratt, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Sari Havia of counsel), for appellant North Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hospital.
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph D. Furlong of counsel), for appellant Michael S. Drew.
Gordon & Gordon, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Peter S. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
[98 A.D.3d 644]In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants North Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hospital and Michael S. Drew separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered December 5, 2011, as denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to enlarge the time to serve and file a note of issue.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs, the defendants' respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are granted, and that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to enlarge the time to serve and file a note of issue is denied as academic.
The plaintiff commenced this action against Forest Hills Hospital, sued herein as North Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) and Michael S. Drew by filing a summons and complaint on November 9, 2009. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of certain medical care and treatment rendered to him by the defendants from July 17, 2008, through August 28, 2008. Drew answered and served discovery demands on [98 A.D.3d 645]December 30, 2009. The hospital answered and served discovery demands on December 22, 2009. On April 12, 2011, and April 26, 2011, respectively, Drew and the hospital served valid 90–day demands pursuant to CPLR 3216, directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of the service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellison v. Chartis Claims, Inc.
...seeks leave to amend his second amended complaint, must be denied (see Reyes, 112 A.D.3d at 806, 978 N.Y.S.2d 63 ; Douglas Elliman, LLC, 98 A.D.3d at 644, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766 ; Tarek Youssef Hassan Saleh, 92 A.D.3d at 750, 939 N.Y.S.2d 102 ).Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Other Relief As set for......
-
Reyes v. Brinks Global Servs. United States, Inc.
...A.D.3d 812, 816, 941 N.Y.S.2d 192). Here, the proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit ( see Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere, 98 A.D.3d at 644, 949 N.Y.S.2d 766; Tarek Youssef Hassan Saleh v. 5th Ave. Kings Fruit & Vegetables Corp., 92 A.D.3d 749, 750, 939 N.Y.S.2d 102). The defend......
-
Jedraszak v. Cnty. of Westchester
...the demands or to extend the 90–day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Garcia v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp., 98 A.D.3d 644, 645, 949 N.Y.S.2d 781;Saginor v. Brook, 92 A.D.3d 860, 860, 939 N.Y.S.2d 124; [958 N.Y.S.2d 491]Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 931 N.Y.S.2d 91......
-
Douglas Elliman, LLC v. Bergere
...92 A.D.3d 749, 750, 939 N.Y.S.2d 102, quoting Peerless Ins. Co. v. Micro Fibertek, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 978, 980, 890 N.Y.S.2d 560). Here, [98 A.D.3d 644]the proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion. Insofar a......