Billings v. Southside Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Billings v. Southside Hospital

122 A.D.2d 101, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59167

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 14, 1986·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated March 29, 1985, which, after a hearing, dismissed the action as against the defendant Norman L. Chernick for lack of jurisdiction over his person.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue at the hearing was whether or not the defendant Dr. Chernick was personally served with a summons and complaint at his office in Bay Shore on August 4, 1983.

The testimony on this issue was conflicting and presented a pure question of credibility which was resolved in favor of Dr. Chernick. This determination, based upon the hearing court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses, is entitled to deference, and we see no reason to disturb it (see, Occhiuzzi v Occhiuzzi, 108 AD2d 799; Feeney v Booth Mem. Med. Center, 109 AD2d 865; Altman v Wallach, 104 AD2d 391). Moflen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.), dated March 29, 1985, which, after a hearing, dismissed the action as against the defendant Norman L. Chernick for lack of jurisdiction over his person.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue at the hearing was whether or not the defendant Dr. Chernick was personally served with a summons and complaint at his office in Bay Shore on August 4, 1983.

The testimony on this issue was conflicting and presented a pure question of credibility which was resolved in favor of Dr. Chernick. This determination, based upon the hearing court’s opportunity to observe the witnesses, is entitled to deference, and we see no reason to disturb it (see, Occhiuzzi v Occhiuzzi, 108 AD2d 799; Feeney v Booth Mem. Med. Center, 109 AD2d 865; Altman v Wallach, 104 AD2d 391). Moflen, P. J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Billings v. Southside Hospital, 122 A.D.2d 101, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

122 A.D.2d 101 (Billings v. Southside Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related