Amodeo v. Radler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amodeo v. Radler

89 A.D.2d 594, 452 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17675

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 19, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 594 (Amodeo v. Radler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amodeo v. Radler, 89 A.D.2d 594, 452 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Bruce Radler appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), dated August 25, 1981, which denied, as moot, his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him for failure of plaintiffs to timely serve a bill of particulars pursuant to a prior conditional order of preclusion. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements and motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against defendant Radler granted. The record in this case and the arguments raised by former counsel to the plaintiffs establish only law office failure which is, by law, not a reasonable excuse for a delay in complying with a conditional preclusion order for a period [595]*595of more than three months. (See Gohery v Spartan Concrete Corp., 85 AD2d 678, affd 56 NY2d 785.) Plaintiffs have also failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of their claim. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Bruce Radler appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), dated August 25, 1981, which denied, as moot, his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him for failure of plaintiffs to timely serve a bill of particulars pursuant to a prior conditional order of preclusion. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements and motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against defendant Radler granted. The record in this case and the arguments raised by former counsel to the plaintiffs establish only law office failure which is, by law, not a reasonable excuse for a delay in complying with a conditional preclusion order for a period [595]*595of more than three months. (See Gohery v Spartan Concrete Corp., 85 AD2d 678, affd 56 NY2d 785.) Plaintiffs have also failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of their claim. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 594, 452 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amodeo-v-radler-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack