Hare v. Newman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hare v. Newman

309 A.D.2d 1265, 765 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10162

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1265 (Hare v. Newman) 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

Hare v. Newman, 309 A.D.2d 1265, 765 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Bergin, J.), entered September 25, 2001, which granted defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order. Because plaintiffs claims in this medical malpractice action are not based on matters within the ordinary experience of laypersons, an affidavit of merit from a medical expert was required (see Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1001 [1985]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Bergin, J.), entered September 25, 2001, which granted defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order. Because plaintiffs claims in this medical malpractice action are not based on matters within the ordinary experience of laypersons, an affidavit of merit from a medical expert was required (see Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1001 [1985]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1265, 765 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hare-v-newman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack