Bustamonte v. Koval

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bustamonte v. Koval

98 A.D.2d 739, 469 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21049

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 739 (Bustamonte v. Koval) 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

Bustamonte v. Koval, 98 A.D.2d 739, 469 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Raymond Koval appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated March 15, 1983, which denied his motion for summary judgment in his favor based on plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a bill of particulars pursuant to a prior conditional order of preclusion. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against defendant Koval granted. Plaintiff has failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (see Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594, affd 59 NY2d 1001; Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828; Lee v Moley, 97 AD2d 787). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Raymond Koval appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated March 15, 1983, which denied his motion for summary judgment in his favor based on plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a bill of particulars pursuant to a prior conditional order of preclusion. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against defendant Koval granted. Plaintiff has failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (see Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594, affd 59 NY2d 1001; Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828; Lee v Moley, 97 AD2d 787). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 739, 469 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bustamonte-v-koval-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack