Mosberg v. Elahi
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | WACHTLER; SMITH |
| Citation | 605 N.E.2d 353,590 N.Y.S.2d 866,80 N.Y.2d 941 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1992 |
| Parties | , 605 N.E.2d 353 Christine J. MOSBERG, Appellant, v. E. Hakim ELAHI, Respondent. |
Page 866
v.
E. Hakim ELAHI, Respondent.
[80 N.Y.2d 942] Anthony Malillo and Russell D. Mauro, Flushing, for appellant.
Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, New York City (Barbara A. Sheehan and Charles L. Bach, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Page 867
[605 N.E.2d 354] OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division, 176 A.D.2d 710, 574 N.Y.S.2d 793, should be affirmed, with costs.
The party opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is obligated to make an evidentiary showing sufficiently demonstrating a "good and meritorious cause of action" (CPLR 3216[e]; see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers & Wells, 64 N.Y.2d 904, 905, 488 N.Y.S.2d 156, 477 N.E.2d 458). In medical malpractice actions expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit, except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons (Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188). We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements.
[80 N.Y.2d 943] WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur.
SMITH, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liberman v. Gelstein
...above, if it is found that defendant stated the accusation as fact, spite or ill will may have been the sole motivation. Page 866 [605 N.E.2d 353] Therefore, if plaintiff proves that the accusation is false, the foregoing considerations suffice to create issues of fact as to malice under bo......
-
Gotlin v. Lederman, No. 04 Civ. 3736 (ILG).
...in cases such as this where the matters are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons. See Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353 (1992); Nichols v. Stamer, 49 A.D.3d 832, 833, 854 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y.App.Div.2008); Orr v. Meisel, 248 A.D.2......
-
Public Adm'r v. Levine
...required to demonstrate merit” (Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 1001, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188 [1985] ; see also Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353 [1992] ). This Court has followed this precedent (see e.g. Navarro v. Plus Endopothetik, 105 A.D.3d ......
-
Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.
...merit, [955 N.Y.S.2d 107]except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons ( see Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353). The undetailed and uncorroborated claim of law office failure [100 A.D.3d 819]set forth by the plaintiff's ......
-
Liberman v. Gelstein
...above, if it is found that defendant stated the accusation as fact, spite or ill will may have been the sole motivation. Page 866 [605 N.E.2d 353] Therefore, if plaintiff proves that the accusation is false, the foregoing considerations suffice to create issues of fact as to malice under bo......
-
Gotlin v. Lederman, No. 04 Civ. 3736 (ILG).
...in cases such as this where the matters are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons. See Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353 (1992); Nichols v. Stamer, 49 A.D.3d 832, 833, 854 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y.App.Div.2008); Orr v. Meisel, 248 A.D.2......
-
Public Adm'r v. Levine
...required to demonstrate merit” (Fiore v. Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999, 1001, 489 N.Y.S.2d 47, 478 N.E.2d 188 [1985] ; see also Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353 [1992] ). This Court has followed this precedent (see e.g. Navarro v. Plus Endopothetik, 105 A.D.3d ......
-
Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.
...merit, [955 N.Y.S.2d 107]except as to matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons ( see Mosberg v. Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353). The undetailed and uncorroborated claim of law office failure [100 A.D.3d 819]set forth by the plaintiff's ......