Sussman v. Franklin General Hospital
| Decision Date | 07 July 1980 |
| Citation | 429 N.Y.S.2d 729,77 A.D.2d 567 |
| Parties | Geraldine SUSSMAN, as executrix, etc., Appellant, v. FRANKLIN GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Morris J. Eisen, P.C., New York City (Stephen Kruger, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., Mineola, of counsel), for respondent Franklin General Hospital.
Mirabel, Wortman & Freidel, Huntington (Roger B. Lawrence, Mineola, of counsel), for respondents Amer, Ryzoff & Ruben.
Before RABIN, J. P., and GULOTTA, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff as executrix of the estate of Milton Sussman, deceased, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (BURKE, J.), entered October 12, 1979, which dismissed the complaint as to all defendants.
Order affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, and in opposition thereto plaintiff submitted neither an adequate affidavit of merits nor a justifiable excuse for her failure to file a note of issue within the 90 days provided by statute (see CPLR 3216, subd. (b), par. (3)). In an order which was not appealed, Special Term granted the defendants' motions, with leave to the plaintiff to move within 20 days to vacate that dismissal upon papers "demonstrating an excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action." Although plaintiff purportedly moved in response to that order, she asked instead for reargument and again failed to submit any affidavit containing evidentiary facts by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim, i. e., a medical expert (see CPLR 3216, subd. (e); Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25, 32, 245 N.Y.S.2d 186; Keating v. Smith, 20 A.D.2d 141, 245 N.Y.S.2d 909). In such circumstances, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to dismiss the complaint (see Havens v. Best Way Lines, 60 A.D.2d 926, 400 N.Y.S.2d 930, app. dsmd. 44 N.Y.2d 729, 405 N.Y.S.2d 459, 376 N.E.2d 932). Schaffer v. Route Messenger Serv., 65 A.D.2d 809, 410 N.Y.S.2d 365 is distinguishable on its facts, as the existence of an adequate affidavit of merits was not disputed in that case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargett v. Health & Hospitals Corp. of City of New York
...253; see, also, Harris v. Brooklyn Hosp. at Brooklyn Cumberland Med. Center, 81 A.D.2d 658, 438 N.Y.S.2d 370; Sussman v. Franklin Gen. Hosp., 77 A.D.2d 567, 429 N.Y.S.2d 729; Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d ...
- Town of North Hempstead v. Bonner
-
Jolley v. State
...medical conclusions about which he was incompetent to testify, citing O'Halloran, supra. (See also, Sussman v. Franklin General Hospital, A.D.2d, 429 N.Y.S.2d 729 (2d Dept. 1980).) The principle of law expressed in these authorities is a general one which should be applied to late claims. T......
-
Vernon v. Nassau County Medical Center
...Hosp. Center, 94 A.D.2d 736, 462 N.Y.S.2d 485; Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hosp., 86 A.D.2d 594, 446 N.Y.S.2d 130; Sussman v. Franklin Gen. Hosp., 77 A.D.2d 567, 429 N.Y.S.2d 729). In the absence of such an affidavit, Special Term erred in denying defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for......