Hampton v. Mercy Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hampton v. Mercy Hospital

57 A.D.2d 942, 394 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 942 (Hampton v. Mercy 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

Hampton v. Mercy Hospital, 57 A.D.2d 942, 394 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 7, 1977, which granted defendant-respondent Rooney’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him on the ground that plaintiff failed to serve a bill of particulars within the time allotted by an order of preclusion and was therefore precluded from giving [943]*943any evidence as to his "negligence and/or malpractice”. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, upon condition that plaintiffs attorney personally pay respondent’s attorney the sum of $100 within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon; in the event that such condition is not complied with, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (cf. Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., 46 AD2d 806). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 7, 1977, which granted defendant-respondent Rooney’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against him on the ground that plaintiff failed to serve a bill of particulars within the time allotted by an order of preclusion and was therefore precluded from giving [943]*943any evidence as to his "negligence and/or malpractice”. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied, upon condition that plaintiffs attorney personally pay respondent’s attorney the sum of $100 within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon; in the event that such condition is not complied with, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (cf. Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., 46 AD2d 806). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 942, 394 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-mercy-hospital-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack