Levy v. Forster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Forster

293 A.D.2d 364, 740 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 364 (Levy v. Forster) 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

Levy v. Forster, 293 A.D.2d 364, 740 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered March 22, 2001, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted in the absence of evidence that respondents were aware or should have been aware that the December 14, 1994 MRI, ordered by the decedent’s chiropractor, had revealed a brain tumor or even a possibility thereof. The dispute concerning responsibility for cancellation of the MRI that the decedent was scheduled to undergo at respondent hospital on December 6, 1994 is not material where the decedent failed to reschedule with defendants-respondents. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered March 22, 2001, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted in the absence of evidence that respondents were aware or should have been aware that the December 14, 1994 MRI, ordered by the decedent’s chiropractor, had revealed a brain tumor or even a possibility thereof. The dispute concerning responsibility for cancellation of the MRI that the decedent was scheduled to undergo at respondent hospital on December 6, 1994 is not material where the decedent failed to reschedule with defendants-respondents. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 364, 740 N.Y.S.2d 206, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-forster-nyappdiv-2002.