Kratter v. Weintraub

97 A.D.2d 491, 467 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20082
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 491 (Kratter v. Weintraub) 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
Kratter v. Weintraub, 97 A.D.2d 491, 467 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), dated April 1, 1983, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and reargue, and thereupon vacated a prior order dated December 23,1982, which granted the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to them and denied said motion. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and reargue denied and order dated December 23, 1982, reinstated. Upon plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and reargue a prior order which dismissed their complaint as to the appellants, they submitted an affidavit of a medical expert in order to remedy an evidentiary deficiency. By plaintiffs’ own admission, the affiant had not been retained solely after the granting of the appellants’ motion for summary judgment but had been engaged as a medical [492]*492expert on this case for some time prior to said determination. Plaintiffs, however, failed to offer any explanation for their failure to have submitted an affidavit of a qualified medical expert in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. We conclude that under the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiffs’ failure to have submitted a medical affidavit in response to the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was fatal. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed as against the appellants and plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and reargue should not have been granted. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Svoboda v. Our Lady of Lourdes Memorial Hospital, Inc.
31 A.D.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Taylor v. Quality Dental Group
234 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Brown v. Samalin & Bock, P. C.
168 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 491, 467 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kratter-v-weintraub-nyappdiv-1983.