Cavallino v. Sonsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cavallino v. Sonsky

251 A.D.2d 361, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6570

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 361 (Cavallino v. Sonsky) 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

Cavallino v. Sonsky, 251 A.D.2d 361, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Ming Z. Huang and Methodist Hospital appeal [362]*362from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Clemente, J.), dated February 6, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of the defendant Ming Z. Huang.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of the appellant Ming Z. Huang, since Dr. Huang has disappeared or intentionally made himself unavailable for several scheduled examinations before trial (see, Rowe v Lee Gee Sook, 224 AD2d 404; Boera v Batz, 236 AD2d 349; Spataro v Ervin, 186 AD2d 793; Amico v Pepe, 172 AD2d 575; Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 Ming Z. Huang and Methodist Hospital appeal [362]*362from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Clemente, J.), dated February 6, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of the defendant Ming Z. Huang.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the answer of the appellant Ming Z. Huang, since Dr. Huang has disappeared or intentionally made himself unavailable for several scheduled examinations before trial (see, Rowe v Lee Gee Sook, 224 AD2d 404; Boera v Batz, 236 AD2d 349; Spataro v Ervin, 186 AD2d 793; Amico v Pepe, 172 AD2d 575; Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 361, 672 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavallino-v-sonsky-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack