Kalra v. Padmanabh Upadhyaya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalra v. Padmanabh Upadhyaya

181 A.D.2d 614

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 614 (Kalra v. Padmanabh Upadhyaya) 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

Kalra v. Padmanabh Upadhyaya, 181 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eve M. Preminger, J.), entered September 8, 1989, which denied the motion of defendants to dismiss the action for failure to timely file a Notice of Medical Malpractice Action and, order of the same Court and Justice, entered April 12, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion to preclude [615]*615answers to certain interrogatories and which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers and to preclude the examination before trial of plaintiff and for summary judgment, both unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no showing that the IAS court abused its broad discretion to supervise disclosure and issue protective orders (Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 AD2d 914). Nor was the denial of summary judgment improper where, as here, triable issues of fact exist as to the reasonableness of the medical treatment administered. Further there appear to be pertinent facts within plaintiffs knowledge and control which may be revealed through pretrial disclosure. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eve M. Preminger, J.), entered September 8, 1989, which denied the motion of defendants to dismiss the action for failure to timely file a Notice of Medical Malpractice Action and, order of the same Court and Justice, entered April 12, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion to preclude [615]*615answers to certain interrogatories and which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers and to preclude the examination before trial of plaintiff and for summary judgment, both unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no showing that the IAS court abused its broad discretion to supervise disclosure and issue protective orders (Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 AD2d 914). Nor was the denial of summary judgment improper where, as here, triable issues of fact exist as to the reasonableness of the medical treatment administered. Further there appear to be pertinent facts within plaintiffs knowledge and control which may be revealed through pretrial disclosure. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalra-v-padmanabh-upadhyaya-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack