Layz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Layz v. City of New York

205 A.D.2d 460, 613 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedJune 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 460 (Layz v. City of New York) 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

Layz v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 460, 613 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about May 13, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the motion papers, which included, inter alia, an affirmation by an obstetrician-gynecologist that various acts and omissions of defendants at the time of decedent’s birth constituted malpractice, and were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s brain damage and eventual death, constituted a sufficient evidentiary showing to support the added cause of action for wrongful death (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; cf., McGuire v Small, 129 AD2d 429). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about May 13, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the motion papers, which included, inter alia, an affirmation by an obstetrician-gynecologist that various acts and omissions of defendants at the time of decedent’s birth constituted malpractice, and were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s brain damage and eventual death, constituted a sufficient evidentiary showing to support the added cause of action for wrongful death (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; cf., McGuire v Small, 129 AD2d 429). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 460, 613 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack