CORRADO, KATHLEEN v. DAVULURI, M.D., CHOUDARY

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2014
DocketCA 14-00672
StatusPublished

This text of CORRADO, KATHLEEN v. DAVULURI, M.D., CHOUDARY (CORRADO, KATHLEEN v. DAVULURI, M.D., CHOUDARY) 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
CORRADO, KATHLEEN v. DAVULURI, M.D., CHOUDARY, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1150 CA 14-00672 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

KATHLEEN CORRADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF LUCAS DELGATTO, INFANT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHOUDARY DAVULURI, M.D., ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER’S MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH CENTER AND ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

MARTIN, GANOTIS, BROWN, MOULD & CURRIE, P.C., DEWITT (DANIEL P. LARABY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHOUDARY DAVULURI, M.D.

HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (ASHLEY D. HAYES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER’S MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH CENTER AND ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER.

DEFRANCISCO & FALGIANTANO LAW FIRM, SYRACUSE (CHARLES L. FALGIATANO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for a directed verdict.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case (see CPLR 4401). The jury was unable to reach a verdict after the close of evidence, and Supreme Court declared a mistrial. The appeals must be dismissed. The court’s order denying the motion for a directed verdict embodies “determinations in the nature of rulings by the court during the trial and is not appealable” (Covell v H.R.H. Constr. Corp., 24 AD2d 566, 567, affd 17 NY2d 709; see Kinker v 6409-20th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD2d 907, 908, appeal dismissed 20 NY2d 796; see also Kemp v Lynch, 283 AD2d 934, 934), either as of right or by permission (see Radford v Sheridan Prods., 181 AD2d 667, 668).

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Covell v. H. R. H. Construction Corp.
216 N.E.2d 710 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Covell v. H. R. H. Construction Corp.
24 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Kinker v. 6409-20th Avenue Realty Corp.
28 A.D.2d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Radford v. Sheridan Products, Inc.
181 A.D.2d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Kemp v. Lynch
283 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
CORRADO, KATHLEEN v. DAVULURI, M.D., CHOUDARY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corrado-kathleen-v-davuluri-md-choudary-nyappdiv-2014.