Schroeder v. Good Samaritan Hosp.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2011 |
| Citation | 80 A.D.3d 744,915 N.Y.S.2d 302 |
| Parties | Ruth SCHROEDER, appellant, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, et al., respondents, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
80 A.D.3d 744
Ruth SCHROEDER, appellant,
v.
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 25, 2011.
Stockschlaeder, McDonald & Sules, P.C., (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant.
O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle & Oleson, White Plains, N.Y. (Montgomery L. Effinger of counsel), for respondent Good Samaritan Hospital.
Pilkington & Leggett, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Michael N. Romano of counsel), for respondents Andrew Schechter and Lewis Bobroff.
Vouté, Lohrfink, Magro & Collins, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Laura K. Silverstein and Sarah R. Levin of counsel), for respondent "John" Bauman.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated October 16, 2009, as granted the separate motions of the defendant Good Samaritan Hospital, and the defendants Andrew Schechter and Lewis Bobroff pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (8) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, and the motion of the defendant "John" Bauman pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated March 24, 2010, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination granting the motion of the defendant "John" Bauman pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated October 16, 2009, as granted the motion of the defendant "John" Bauman pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by the order dated March 24, 2010, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 16, 2009, is reversed insofar as reviewed, and the separate motions of the defendant Good Samaritan Hospital, and the defendants Andrew Schechter and Lewis Bobroff pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (8) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 24, 2010, is reversed insofar as appealed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanyo v. Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc.
...( CPLR 3025 [a] ), plaintiff did not do so here (cf. Cracolici, 127 A.D.3d at 414, 4 N.Y.S.3d 506 ; Schroeder v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 80 A.D.3d 744, 746, 915 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2d Dept. 2011] ; O'Keefe v. Baiettie, 72 A.D.3d 916, 917, 899 N.Y.S.2d 326 [2d Dept. 2010] ; see also CPLR 320[a] ). P......
- Schleef v. Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.
-
Cracolici v. Shah
...on Dr. Shah, within 120–days of the filing of the action, was proper and timely (see CPLR 306–b ; Schroeder v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 80 A.D.3d 744, 746, 915 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2d Dept.2011] ). Leave of the court was not required for the amendment since defendants' time to respond to the original......
-
Johns v. Van Brunt Motors Inc.
...compromised because it was served with a summons with notice as opposed to a summons and complaint ( see Schroeder v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 80 A.D.3d 744, 746, 915 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2011] ) and acknowledges receiving, after making an appropriate demand, a copy of the summons and complaint that ......