Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry

25 Misc. 3d 51

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 11, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 Misc. 3d 51 (Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cabrera v. New York University College of Dentistry, 25 Misc. 3d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders, entered April 24, 2008, and June 17, 2008, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to renew based upon the affirmation of plaintiffs attorney explaining why his medical expert’s affirmation was unsigned and redacted (see Mattis v Keen, Zhao, 54 AD3d 610 [2008]) and correcting the procedural error pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [2003]; Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202 [2001]). On renewal, the court correctly determined that factual issues were presented by the conflicting opinions offered by the parties’ medical experts as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure proximately caused plaintiffs injuries (see Prigorac v Park, 20 AD3d 363 [2005]).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders, entered April 24, 2008, and June 17, 2008, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs.

Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to renew based upon the affirmation of plaintiffs attorney explaining why his medical expert’s affirmation was unsigned and redacted (see Mattis v Keen, Zhao, 54 AD3d 610 [2008]) and correcting the procedural error pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [2003]; Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202 [2001]). On renewal, the court correctly determined that factual issues were presented by the conflicting opinions offered by the parties’ medical experts as to whether defendant departed from the prevailing standard of care and, if so, whether such departure proximately caused plaintiffs injuries (see Prigorac v Park, 20 AD3d 363 [2005]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Misc. 3d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabrera-v-new-york-university-college-of-dentistry-nyappterm-2009.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack