Carew v. Urological Surgeons of Long Island, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carew v. Urological Surgeons of Long Island, P.C.

292 A.D.2d 484, 739 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3059

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 484 (Carew v. Urological Surgeons of Long Island, P.C.) 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

Carew v. Urological Surgeons of Long Island, P.C., 292 A.D.2d 484, 739 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant David G. Schwartz appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated April 5, 2001, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

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

The claims asserted against the appellant are not time barred (see, CPLR 214-a; Watkins v Fromm, 108 AD2d 233, 237-238).

Moreover, there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant David G. Schwartz was negligent and, if so, whether his negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, 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, etc., the defendant David G. Schwartz appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated April 5, 2001, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against him.

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

The claims asserted against the appellant are not time barred (see, CPLR 214-a; Watkins v Fromm, 108 AD2d 233, 237-238).

Moreover, there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant David G. Schwartz was negligent and, if so, whether his negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 484, 739 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carew-v-urological-surgeons-of-long-island-pc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack