Feinblum v. Dybner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feinblum v. Dybner

197 A.D.2d 560, 604 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9166

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 560 (Feinblum v. Dybner) 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

Feinblum v. Dybner, 197 A.D.2d 560, 604 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Rubin Dybner and Vasil Popa appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated June 24, 1991, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Dybner and Popa, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

We agree with the defendants’ contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit by a medical expert mandates dismissal of the complaint (see, Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941; Perez v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 530). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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 Rubin Dybner and Vasil Popa appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated June 24, 1991, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Dybner and Popa, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

We agree with the defendants’ contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit by a medical expert mandates dismissal of the complaint (see, Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941; Perez v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 530). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 560, 604 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinblum-v-dybner-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack