Ballav v. Deepdale General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballav v. Deepdale General Hospital

196 A.D.2d 520, 601 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8035

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

DecidedAugust 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 520 (Ballav v. Deepdale General Hospital) 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

Ballav v. Deepdale General Hospital, 196 A.D.2d 520, 601 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Samuel Movsas and Philip Gelber appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), dated January 7, 1991, as, after a hearing, permitted the plaintiff to commence a new action against the aforesaid defendants pursuant to CPLR 205 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The original action was timely commenced for the purposes of CPLR 205 (a), despite the fact that when the summons was filed pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (5), the plaintiff had not yet been appointed the administrator of the decedent’s estate (see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242; Moskowitz v Rosenberg, 71 AD2d 301). The appellants’ contention that they were improperly served with process in the original action is [521]*521without merit. The hearing court properly determined the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing to determine if service had been effected and the court’s finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Feeney v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 109 AD2d 865). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Samuel Movsas and Philip Gelber appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), dated January 7, 1991, as, after a hearing, permitted the plaintiff to commence a new action against the aforesaid defendants pursuant to CPLR 205 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The original action was timely commenced for the purposes of CPLR 205 (a), despite the fact that when the summons was filed pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (5), the plaintiff had not yet been appointed the administrator of the decedent’s estate (see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242; Moskowitz v Rosenberg, 71 AD2d 301). The appellants’ contention that they were improperly served with process in the original action is [521]*521without merit. The hearing court properly determined the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing to determine if service had been effected and the court’s finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Feeney v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 109 AD2d 865). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 520, 601 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballav-v-deepdale-general-hospital-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack