Harmon v. Huntington Hosp.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1994 |
| Parties | Leonard E. HARMON, Plaintiff, v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Leonard E. Harmon, pro se.
Furey, Furey, Lapping, Demaria & Petrozzo by Jane Himelfarb, Hempstead, for defendant.
Defendant Huntington Hospital moves for an order dismissing the action because plaintiff failed to provide an adequate certificate of merit in that the certificate appended to the complaint did not recite that the plaintiff had conferred with a physician as required by the statute but instead recited that the plaintiff had conferred with a physician and/or nurse.
Plaintiff Leonard Harmon, relying on CPLR § 3012-a(f), opposes the motion on the ground that since he is appearing pro se he is not required to serve a certificate of merit. Plaintiff has however indicated that if so ordered he is prepared to serve a new certificate of merit because he has in fact conferred with more than one physician as well as with various nurses.
CPLR § 3012-a(f) provides that the provisions pertaining to the need to serve a certificate of merit are inapplicable "to a plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney." The hospital takes the position that since the plaintiff is an attorney he must serve a certificate of merit. The plaintiff claims that since all papers, including the pleadings, list him as "plaintiff, pro se " he is not required to file a certificate of merit.
The legislature found that requiring a certificate of merit would "improve the quality of medical malpractice adjudications and deter the commencement of frivolous cases." McKinney's 1986 Session Laws of N.Y., chap. 266, § 1. The bill jacket does not set forth a reason for the exemption for pro se litigants. However, one commentator has suggested that the certificate of merit requirement is inapplicable to a pro se plaintiff (not because of any lack of knowledge, experience or resources, but) because "[a]n infestation of plaintiffs representing themselves in medical malpractice actions is not among the judiciary's current problems." Siegel, Prac. Comm. C3012-a:1, McKinney's Consol. Laws of New York, Book 7B, p. 715 (1991). This appears to be a valid conclusion since the legislature, if it believed that it was too difficult for a pro se plaintiff to consult with a physician in a malpractice case, would have promulgated a statute exempting pro se plaintiffs in malpractice cases from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Matamoro
...; Djeddah v. Williams, 24 Misc.3d 1234[A], *2, 2009 WL 2462646 [Sup. Ct., New York County] ; Harmon v. Huntington Hosp., 163 Misc.2d 150, 151, 619 N.Y.S.2d 492 [Sup. Ct., New York County] ). CPLR 3012–a and 3012–b are alike in that they place an initial responsibility upon attorneys for pla......
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Matamoro
...362, 378 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County]; Djeddah v Williams, 24 Misc.3d 1234 [A], *2 [Sup Ct, New York County]; Harmon v Huntington Hosp., 163 Misc.2d 150, 151 [Sup Ct, New York County]). CPLR 3012-a and 3012-b are alike in that they place an initial responsibility upon attorneys for plaintiffs t......
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Matamoro
...362, 378 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County]; Djeddah v Williams, 24 Misc.3d 1234 [A], *2 [Sup Ct, New York County]; Harmon v Huntington Hosp., 163 Misc.2d 150, 151 [Sup Ct, New York County]). CPLR 3012-a and 3012-b are alike in that they place an initial responsibility upon attorneys for plaintiffs t......
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Matamoro
...362, 378 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County]; Djeddah v Williams, 24 Misc.3d 1234[A], *2 [Sup Ct, New York County]; Harmon v Huntington Hosp., 163 Misc.2d 150, 151 [Sup Ct, New York County]). CPLR 3012-a and 3012-b are alike in that they place an initial responsibility upon attorneys for plaintiffs to......