Jackson v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center

7 A.D.3d 356, 775 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 356 (Jackson v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center) 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
Jackson v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, 7 A.D.3d 356, 775 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert J. Emanuelli, J.), entered March 19, 2003, which, to the extent appealable, denied renewal of a prior order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal of the action without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having received a 90-day notice and stipulated, in 1998, to file a note of issue on the understanding that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action, plaintiff neither filed the note nor moved in a timely fashion for an extension of time to comply. In 2001, Justice George Friedman denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the default, with leave to renew upon an affidavit of merit with a reasonable excuse, to be submitted “in admissible form.”

The purported “affidavit” of David Berkowitz, an attorney who had handled the case for plaintiffs retained counsel, is the same document Justice Friedman rejected as insufficient on the original vacatur motion. For her “reasonable excuse,” plaintiff this time pointed to Berkowitz’s suspension from the practice of law, which actually took place 8V2 months after the deadline for filing the note of issue. Plaintiffs failure to establish a meritorious claim in this medical malpractice action (see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941 [1992]) was not cured by submitting, for the first time in reply, her “physician’s affirmation of merit” that still did not address with requisite specificity the issue of causation or the alleged departure from acceptable medical practice (see Nepomniaschi v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 743 [1992]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Casa Redimix Concrete Corp. v. Westway Industries Inc.
31 Misc. 3d 549 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Smith v. Montefiore Medical Center
60 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Perilla v. Akanda
14 Misc. 3d 555 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Kaufman v. Bauer
8 Misc. 3d 60 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A.D.3d 356, 775 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-bronx-lebanon-hospital-center-nyappdiv-2004.