Kramer v. Salvati
| Decision Date | 03 May 1982 |
| Citation | 88 A.D.2d 583,449 N.Y.S.2d 795 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Harry KRAMER et al., Respondents, v. Eduardo SALVATI et al., Defendants. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, Appellants. |
Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, New York City (Harold Rosenblatt, New York City, of counsel), appellants pro se.
Margaret Kramer, respondent pro se.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and TITONE, GULOTTA and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs' attorneys, Fuchsberg and Fuchsberg, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 1, 1981, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying the motion of Fuchsberg and Fuchsberg to be relieved as plaintiffs' attorneys.
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
An affirmation submitted in support of appellants' motion to be relieved as plaintiffs' attorneys states that "medical malpractice case involves the failure to reinstate hypertension drugs after plaintiff Harry Kramer was discharged from defendant hospital." The complaint, however, is not included in the record on appeal.
Plaintiff Harry Kramer had a severe stroke on January 13, 1977. Plaintiff Margaret Kramer asserts that "at 11 P.M. one night (after my brother-in-law contacted them)" the appellants called her and advised her that they thought plaintiffs had "a most promising malpractice suit and were very anxious for us to retain them." Plaintiffs did, in fact, then retain them, and suit was instituted in June, 1977. Margaret Kramer averred--without contradiction--that during the ensuing four years appellants advised her that her case had "excellent merit".
Appellants had placed the matter on the calendar and a date was set for a malpractice panel hearing when plaintiff Harry Kramer died on January 8, 1981. By notice of motion dated May 29, 1981, appellants moved to be relieved as plaintiffs' attorneys. The basis for the request was "various differences" that had arisen with Margaret Kramer. The moving papers contained no specification whatsoever of this conclusory assertion. Special Term denied the motion and appellants moved for renewal and reargument. The essential basis for that motion was a letter dated November 25, 1980 from a medical expert (Dr. Edward Wolff), which appellants construe as demonstrating that plaintiffs' case has no merit. The renewal and reargument motion was opposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diaz v. N.Y. Comprehensive Cardiology, PLLC
...A.D.2d at 585, 502 N.Y.S.2d 69) must be based on some change in circumstances as the matter progressed. ( See Kramer v. Salvati, 88 A.D.2d 583, 583, 449 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2d Dept.1982] [withdrawal purportedly based on letter of medical expert more than three years after action commenced where c......
-
Kalamata Capital Grp. v. AJP Remodeling, LLC
...in order to be relieved as counsel; conclusory statements are not sufficient (see Kramer v Salvati, 88 A.D.2d 583 [2d Dept 1982]). In Kramer, the Appellate Division found the moving papers of plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to be relived of their responsibilities based their application on "v......
-
Rann v. Lerner
...exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to be relieved as counsel for the plaintiffs (see, Kramer v. Salvati, 88 A.D.2d 583, 449 N.Y.S.2d 795). ...