Wilson v. McCarthy
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Parties | Edward J. WILSON, an infant, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. John F. McCARTHY et al., Defendants, and Jerome Schwartz et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anthony L. Schiavetti, New York City (Norman Bard, Brooklyn, of counsel; Steven Bennett Blau, Brooklyn, and Michael Shad, on the brief), for appellants-respondents.
Sol Lefkowitz, Glen Cove, for respondents-appellants.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and COHALAN, DAMIANI, SHAPIRO and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, the appeals are from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 28, 1976, which, Inter alia, (1) denied the motion of defendants Schwartz and Demeter for a protective order which, Inter alia, sought to vacate the 'notice to take deposition upon oral examination' of Dr. Harry Pollard as a witness for the plaintiffs, (2) granted plaintiffs' cross motion to direct defendants Schwartz and McCarthy to answer questions calling for an expert opinion, which were previously put to them at their depositions and were unanswered, and (3) precluded the questioning of defendant Schwartz concerning the administration of Pitocin (incorrectly spelled 'Pittisson' in the said order). This appeal brings up for review so much of a further order of the same court, dated May 12, 1976, as granted a cross motion for 'reargument, modification or clarification' of the prior order and Inter alia set forth the extent to which Dr. Pollard may be examined.
Permission for the taking of the appeal from so much of the order dated January 28, 1976 as pertains to the questions put at the examination before trial is hereby granted by Mr. Justice COHALAN.
Order dated January 28, 1976 modified by deleting so much of the third decretal paragraph thereof as precluded the questioning of Dr. Schwartz concerning the administration of Pitocin. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Order dated May 12, 1976 affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiffs have alleged that the negligence of certain doctors, and of the hospital in which plaintiff, an expectant mother, was confined, resulted in plaintiff having given birth to a brain-damaged child. It is specifically alleged that one of the defendant doctors was negligent in administering a certain birth-inducing drug, namely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherry v. Koch
...Negron, 105 Misc.2d 492, 493, 432 N.Y.S.2d 348); or where application of the doctrine would be counter-productive (Wilson v. McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 860, 861, 385 N.Y.S.2d 581); or where a prior decision was made solely on motion papers and thereafter a full plenary hearing is conducted (People......
-
Shapiro ex rel. Ehrenpreis v. Ehrenpreis
...Accordingly, "strict adherence to the law of the case principle in this case would be counterproductive" (see Wilson v. McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 860, 861, 385 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2nd Dept.); and the rule of finality therefore will not be applied The 1977 support order relied on a conclusion of law tha......
-
McDermott v. Coughlin
...5011.09 at p 50-98) and decline to bar consideration of an argument crucial to the merits of this proceeding. (cf. Wilson v. McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 860, 385 N.Y.S.2d 581). On its merits, petitioner's argument must prevail. (see: Matter of Jones v. Smith, supra 64 N.Y.2d 1003, 489 N.Y.S.2d 50, ......
-
Sciara v. Surgical Associates of Western N.Y.
...an order prohibiting questions incorporating hypothetical facts which seek opinion testimony ( see e.g. Wilson v. McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 860, 385 N.Y.S.2d 581 [2d Dept. 1976]; Waters v. East Nassau Med. Group, 92 A.D.2d 893, 460 N.Y.S.2d 98 [2d Dept. 1983]; Cuccia v. Brooklyn Med. Group, 171 A......