Udell v. Naghavi
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ. |
| Citation | 919 N.Y.S.2d 79,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01997,82 A.D.3d 960 |
| Parties | John UDELL, et al., appellants,v.Ray S. NAGHAVI, etc., et al., respondents. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 2011 |
82 A.D.3d 960
919 N.Y.S.2d 79
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01997
John UDELL, et al., appellants,
v.
Ray S. NAGHAVI, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 15, 2011.
[919 N.Y.S.2d 80]
Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Norman H. Dachs and Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for appellants.Albanese & Albanese LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Hyman Hacker of counsel), for respondents Ray S. Naghavi, M.D., and R.S. Naghavi, M.D., PLLC.Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., Terence S. Reynolds, and Adonaid C. Medina of counsel), for respondent Joseph Crimi, P.A.REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
[82 A.D.3d 960] In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered May 18, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant Joseph Crimi, P.A., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and the motion of the defendants Ray S. Naghavi, M.D. and R.S. Naghavi, M.D., PLLC, for summary judgment dismissing, as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214–a, so much of the complaint insofar as asserted against them as was based upon their alleged acts or omissions occurring prior to November 27, 2005, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated June 29, 2010, which, upon the order entered May 18, 2010, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Joseph Crimi, P.A., and dismissing the causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Ray S. Naghavi, M.D., and R.S. Naghavi, M.D., PLLC, which were based upon alleged acts or omissions occurring[82 A.D.3d 961] prior to November 27, 2005, and (3), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered August 26, 2010, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination in the order entered May 18, 2010.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered May 18, 2010, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Joseph Crimi, P.A., insofar as it is based upon his alleged acts or omissions occurring on or after November 27, 2005; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Joseph Crimi, P.A., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as
[919 N.Y.S.2d 81]
asserted against him for acts or omissions occurring on or after November 27, 2005, is denied, and the order entered May 18, 2010, is modified accordingly; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 23, 2010, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Ray S. Naghavi, M.D. and R.S. Naghavi, M.D., PLLC, payable by the plaintiff.
The appeal from the intermediate order entered May 18, 2010, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeal from that order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).
The appeal from the order dated August 23, 2010, also must be dismissed. It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bell
...he was a member in a certain club is without merit, as the defendant did not question the prospective juror regarding the specifics [919 N.Y.S.2d 79] of his club membership ( see People v. Clarke, 64 A.D.3d 612, 883 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Young, 35 A.D.3d 324, 325, 827 N.Y.S.2d 126; People ......
-
Cope v. Barakaat
...October 1, 2010, must be dismissed. It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal ( see Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 919 N.Y.S.2d 79; LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d 679, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605).......
-
Kurbanova v. United States, 10 CV 1328 (RJD) (CAP)
...on the date of actual or constructive discovery, but "on the date of the alleged wrongful act or omission." Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 962 (2d Dep't 2011). This date, as recent cases such as Valdez and A.Q.C. illustrate, often precedes that on which a reasonably diligent pla......
-
Schwelnus v. Urological Assocs. of L.I, P.C.
...date of the alleged wrongful act or omission, and, thus, the statute of limitations begins to run on that date ( see Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 919 N.Y.S.2d 79). The date of filing of the summons and verified complaint establishes that the instant action was not commenced until June 3......
-
People v. Bell
...he was a member in a certain club is without merit, as the defendant did not question the prospective juror regarding the specifics [919 N.Y.S.2d 79] of his club membership ( see People v. Clarke, 64 A.D.3d 612, 883 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Young, 35 A.D.3d 324, 325, 827 N.Y.S.2d 126; People ......
-
Cope v. Barakaat
...October 1, 2010, must be dismissed. It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal ( see Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 919 N.Y.S.2d 79; LaSalle Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 69 A.D.3d 679, 891 N.Y.S.2d 655; Wen Zong Yu v. Hua Fan, 65 A.D.3d 1335, 885 N.Y.S.2d 605).......
-
Kurbanova v. United States, 10 CV 1328 (RJD) (CAP)
...on the date of actual or constructive discovery, but "on the date of the alleged wrongful act or omission." Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 962 (2d Dep't 2011). This date, as recent cases such as Valdez and A.Q.C. illustrate, often precedes that on which a reasonably diligent pla......
-
Schwelnus v. Urological Assocs. of L.I, P.C.
...date of the alleged wrongful act or omission, and, thus, the statute of limitations begins to run on that date ( see Udell v. Naghavi, 82 A.D.3d 960, 919 N.Y.S.2d 79). The date of filing of the summons and verified complaint establishes that the instant action was not commenced until June 3......