Rubin v. Grossman
| Decision Date | 20 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Samuel RUBIN, individually, etc., Respondent, v. Saul GROSSMAN, Appellant. (and another action) Action |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feder & Kaszovitz, Alvin M. Feder, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Henry Wolfman, New York City, for defendant-appellant; Edward R. Koudelka, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Before CHRIST, P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, LATHAM and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 23, 1969, which granted plaintiff's motion to consolidate a personal injury action and wrongful death action, both arising out of the same accident.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and motion denied, without prejudice to a renewal on a proper medical affidavit.
In the absence of medical proof showing the causal relationship between the accident and the subsequent death of plaintiff's intestate, a motion to consolidate a personal injury action and a wrongful death action may not be granted (Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors, 17 A.D.2d 785, 232 N.Y.S.2d 635; cf. McCarthy v. Downes, 17 A.D.2d 919, 233 N.Y.S.2d 402). Plaintiff may renew the motion to consolidate upon submitting competent medical proof of such causal connection (cf. Augenbraun v. G & B Distributors, Supra; McCarthy v. Downes, Supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...provided no more analysis of the rule; they merely cite McCarthy, Augenbraun or the later cases themselves (see, e.g., Rubin v. Grossman, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 395; Robbins v. Healy, 35 A.D.2d 850, 317 N.Y.S.2d 29; Wood v. Southside Hosp., supra; Ortiz v. Bono, supra ). Indeed, over t......
-
Robbins v. Healy
...v. G & B Distributors, 17 A.D.2d 785, 232 N.Y.S.2d 635; McCarthy v. Downes, 17 A.D.2d 919, 233 N.Y.S.2d 402; Rubin v. Grossman, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 395). ...
-
Wood v. Southside Hospital
...proposed amended complaint was an improvident exercise of discretion (Robbins v. Healy, 35 A.D.2d 850, 317 N.Y.S.2d 29; Rubin v. Grossman, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 395). ...
-
Pearsall v. Milim
...affd. 39 N.Y.2d 1019, 387 N.Y.S.2d 246, 355 N.E.2d 300; White v. Mid-Town Oil Co., 152 A.D.2d 692, 544 N.Y.S.2d 488; Rubin v. Grossman, 34 A.D.2d 680, 310 N.Y.S.2d 395; Talmatch v. Samet, 134 Misc.2d 1013, 504 N.Y.S.2d ...