Kinney v. Schonfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinney v. Schonfeld

265 A.D.2d 219, 696 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10661

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 219 (Kinney v. Schonfeld) 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

Kinney v. Schonfeld, 265 A.D.2d 219, 696 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [220]*220County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 15, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff-appellant’s attorney is also directed to pay $250 in sanctions to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, forthwith.

The motion court’s grant of summary relief was entirely appropriate; defendant made a prima facie showing that the medical malpractice complaint was without merit and plaintiff did not in response carry her burden to produce competent medical evidence demonstrating that there were nonetheless triable factual issues respecting defendant’s commission of the alleged malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Further, we find that a sanction of $250 is warranted by plaintiffs counsel’s pursuit of this patently meritless appeal, and we impose such sanction in order to deter similar conduct in the future (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [220]*220County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 15, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff-appellant’s attorney is also directed to pay $250 in sanctions to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, forthwith.

The motion court’s grant of summary relief was entirely appropriate; defendant made a prima facie showing that the medical malpractice complaint was without merit and plaintiff did not in response carry her burden to produce competent medical evidence demonstrating that there were nonetheless triable factual issues respecting defendant’s commission of the alleged malpractice (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Further, we find that a sanction of $250 is warranted by plaintiffs counsel’s pursuit of this patently meritless appeal, and we impose such sanction in order to deter similar conduct in the future (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 219, 696 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinney-v-schonfeld-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack