Collura v. Good

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collura v. Good

243 A.D.2d 441, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9358

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 441 (Collura v. Good) 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

Collura v. Good, 243 A.D.2d 441, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated October 17, 1996, as denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death. The motion was adequately “supported by competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the death of the original plaintiff” (Kordonsky v Andrst, 172 AD2d 497, 498; see, Harris v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 202 AD2d 392; Sweeney v Henry F. Gardstein, Jr., M.D., P. C., 160 AD2d 1002; Buono v Victory Mem. Hosp., 151 AD2d 633). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated October 17, 1996, as denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death. The motion was adequately “supported by competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the death of the original plaintiff” (Kordonsky v Andrst, 172 AD2d 497, 498; see, Harris v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 202 AD2d 392; Sweeney v Henry F. Gardstein, Jr., M.D., P. C., 160 AD2d 1002; Buono v Victory Mem. Hosp., 151 AD2d 633). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 441, 665 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collura-v-good-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack