Forgays v. Merola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forgays v. Merola

222 A.D.2d 1088, 636 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14167

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1088 (Forgays v. Merola) 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

Forgays v. Merola, 222 A.D.2d 1088, 636 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of plaintiff to renew her prior motion to compel defendant A. John Merola, M.D., to attend a further deposition and answer inquiries regarding the comparison of two electrocardiogram tests performed on plaintiff’s decedent in January 1991. The questions did not relate solely to the negligence of another physician (see, Carvalho v New Rochelle Hosp., 53 AD2d 635; see also, Harley v Catholic Med. Ctr., 57 AD2d 827) and were relevant to plaintiff’s contention that the death of plaintiff’s decedent was the result of defendants’ negligent failure to treat and care for plaintiff’s decedent adequately (see, Conrad v Park, 204 AD2d 1011). We, therefore, grant the motion to compel.

The appeal by plaintiff from the order denying her motion to limit Dr. Merola’s trial testimony is based upon the court’s denial of her motion to compel. Because we have granted the motion to compel, the appeal from that order is moot (see, e.g., Jones v Park Realty [appeal No. 1], 168 AD2d 945). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of plaintiff to renew her prior motion to compel defendant A. John Merola, M.D., to attend a further deposition and answer inquiries regarding the comparison of two electrocardiogram tests performed on plaintiff’s decedent in January 1991. The questions did not relate solely to the negligence of another physician (see, Carvalho v New Rochelle Hosp., 53 AD2d 635; see also, Harley v Catholic Med. Ctr., 57 AD2d 827) and were relevant to plaintiff’s contention that the death of plaintiff’s decedent was the result of defendants’ negligent failure to treat and care for plaintiff’s decedent adequately (see, Conrad v Park, 204 AD2d 1011). We, therefore, grant the motion to compel.

The appeal by plaintiff from the order denying her motion to limit Dr. Merola’s trial testimony is based upon the court’s denial of her motion to compel. Because we have granted the motion to compel, the appeal from that order is moot (see, e.g., Jones v Park Realty [appeal No. 1], 168 AD2d 945). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1088, 636 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forgays-v-merola-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack