Hull v. Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hull v. Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care

89 A.D.3d 1062, 933 N.Y.2d 595

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1062 (Hull v. Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care) 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

Hull v. Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care, 89 A.D.3d 1062, 933 N.Y.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1063]*1063The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with their contention that the complaint sounds in medical malpractice rather than simple negligence and, thus, that the action was untimely pursuant to CPLR 214-a. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care and Smithtown Healthcare Management, LLC (hereinafter together Smith-town), and that branch of the separate motion of the defendants Jacqueline Morgan and St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center which were for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Smithtown’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[1063]*1063The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with their contention that the complaint sounds in medical malpractice rather than simple negligence and, thus, that the action was untimely pursuant to CPLR 214-a. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Smithtown Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care and Smithtown Healthcare Management, LLC (hereinafter together Smith-town), and that branch of the separate motion of the defendants Jacqueline Morgan and St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center which were for summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Smithtown’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1062, 933 N.Y.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-smithtown-center-for-rehabilitation-nursing-care-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack