Dahlke v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dahlke v. Frankel

267 A.D.2d 54, 699 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12668

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 54 (Dahlke v. Frankel) 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

Dahlke v. Frankel, 267 A.D.2d 54, 699 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to their complaint to include, under their previously asserted cause of action for lack of informed consent, a claim for punitive damages, was not, given the deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendant doctor, plainly without merit and, accordingly, amendment of the complaint to include the claim for punitive damages was properly permitted (see, Atherton v 21 E. 92nd St. Corp., 149 AD2d 354, 356; Hawkins v Genesee Place Corp., 139 AD2d 433). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to their complaint to include, under their previously asserted cause of action for lack of informed consent, a claim for punitive damages, was not, given the deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendant doctor, plainly without merit and, accordingly, amendment of the complaint to include the claim for punitive damages was properly permitted (see, Atherton v 21 E. 92nd St. Corp., 149 AD2d 354, 356; Hawkins v Genesee Place Corp., 139 AD2d 433). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 54, 699 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahlke-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack