Guerrero v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerrero v. Lenox Hill Hospital

270 A.D.2d 179, 705 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3317

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 179 (Guerrero v. Lenox Hill Hospital) 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

Guerrero v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 270 A.D.2d 179, 705 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 9, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff to furnish authorizations for discovery of additional medical records, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants have failed to establish that the additional unspecified medical records they seek, relating to treatment received by Ms. Carrasquillo before, during, and after the alleged medical malpractice, would be relevant to their defense of the action. Defendants’ speculation that pertinent information may exist in the additional medical records sought is insufficient for this Court to conclude that the motion court exercised its discretion improvidently in denying the motion to compel (see, Salkey v Mott, 237 AD2d 504). Accordingly, since defendants have failed to establish that discovery had been willfully frustrated by plaintiff, the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 was properly denied. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered July 9, 1999, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff to furnish authorizations for discovery of additional medical records, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants have failed to establish that the additional unspecified medical records they seek, relating to treatment received by Ms. Carrasquillo before, during, and after the alleged medical malpractice, would be relevant to their defense of the action. Defendants’ speculation that pertinent information may exist in the additional medical records sought is insufficient for this Court to conclude that the motion court exercised its discretion improvidently in denying the motion to compel (see, Salkey v Mott, 237 AD2d 504). Accordingly, since defendants have failed to establish that discovery had been willfully frustrated by plaintiff, the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 was properly denied. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 179, 705 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerrero-v-lenox-hill-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack