Iadarola v. Orthopedic Institute

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iadarola v. Orthopedic Institute

202 A.D.2d 393, 608 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1929

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 393 (Iadarola v. Orthopedic Institute) 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

Iadarola v. Orthopedic Institute, 202 A.D.2d 393, 608 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter [394]*394alia, for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant Andrew Rosenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated November 21, 1991, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We initially note that the portion of the record comprising the motion papers upon which an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated May 28, 1992, was made, inter alia, denying the appellant’s motion denominated as one to reargue or renew his motion for summary judgment, is not properly before this Court. That motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion and was therefore actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 AD2d 639; Matter of Kadish v Colombo, 121 AD2d 722). Furthermore, the denial of that motion is not subject to review pursuant to CPLR 5517 (a) (1) and (b). Accordingly, that portion of the record, which consists of pages 195 through 473, has not been considered by this Court.

Upon review of the portion of the record properly before this Court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint insofar as asserted against him. The motion papers submitted on that motion indicate that questions of fact exist precluding summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ causes of action against the appellant that are grounded in lack of informed consent (see, Public Health Law § 2805-d) and medical malpractice (see, CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter [394]*394alia, for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant Andrew Rosenberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated November 21, 1991, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We initially note that the portion of the record comprising the motion papers upon which an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated May 28, 1992, was made, inter alia, denying the appellant’s motion denominated as one to reargue or renew his motion for summary judgment, is not properly before this Court. That motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion and was therefore actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 AD2d 639; Matter of Kadish v Colombo, 121 AD2d 722). Furthermore, the denial of that motion is not subject to review pursuant to CPLR 5517 (a) (1) and (b). Accordingly, that portion of the record, which consists of pages 195 through 473, has not been considered by this Court.

Upon review of the portion of the record properly before this Court, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the entire complaint insofar as asserted against him. The motion papers submitted on that motion indicate that questions of fact exist precluding summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ causes of action against the appellant that are grounded in lack of informed consent (see, Public Health Law § 2805-d) and medical malpractice (see, CPLR 3212; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 393, 608 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iadarola-v-orthopedic-institute-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack