Reyes v. Sanchez-Pena

• Citation: 986 N.Y.S.2d 466,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03774,117 A.D.3d 621
• Parties: Ursulina REYES, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jose R. SANCHEZ–PENA, M.D., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Jose R. Sanchez–Pena, M.D., P.C., et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 27 May 2014
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 621

986 N.Y.S.2d 466

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03774

Ursulina REYES, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v. Jose R. SANCHEZ–PENA, M.D., et al., Defendants–Appellants,Jose R. Sanchez–Pena, M.D., P.C., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 27, 2014.

Schiavetti, Corgan, DiEdwards, Weinberg and Nicholson, LLP, New York (Frank Dumont of counsel), for Jose R. Sanchez–Pena, M.D. and Comprehensive Medical Evaluation, P.C., appellants.

Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf LLP, New York (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for Ladislav Habina, M.D., appellant.

Bruce G. Clark & Associates, P.C., Port Washington (Diane C. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, ANDRIAS, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Ladislav Habina, M.D.'s and defendants Jose R. Sanchez–Pena, M.D. and Comprehensive Medical Evaluations, P.C.'s respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The motion court erred in denying defendants' motions on the ground that they failed to annex complete copies of the pleadings, including those of the non-movants, to their motion papers ( seeCPLR 3212 [b] ). Since each moving party provided copies of the pleadings pertaining to the claims against that party, the record was complete for purposes of deciding the motions ( see Chan v. Garcia, 24 A.D.3d 197, 806 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1st Dept.2005] ). The court also erred in finding the motions untimely, since Habina's motion was made within the statutory time periods (CPLR 3212[a] ), and Sanchez–Pena and Comprehensive Medical Evaluations's motion was timely pursuant to a stipulation accepted by the court on an earlier return date.

Defendants established prima facie that the injury and symptomatology of which plaintiff complained was not a result of the procedure they performed, a series of cervical facet and epidural steroid injections. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Her expert opined that an unspecified nerve root or axon was somehow injured at some point during the procedure. Although photographs taken during the procedure show no such occurrence, and the post-procedure MRI depicted no such injury, plaintiff's expert stated...