Lovito v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovito v. City of New York

72 A.D.2d 555, 420 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13627

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 555 (Lovito 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

Lovito v. City of New York, 72 A.D.2d 555, 420 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from an [556]*556order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 6, 1979, which (1) granted defendants’ motion for leave to renew and (2) upon renewal, vacated a prior order striking defendants’ answer and directing an inquest, upon condition, inter alia, that the defendants produce the two named physician-witnesses for an examination before trial. Order modified, by adding thereto a provision conditioning the relief to be afforded thereunder upon the further requirement that defendants stipulate, in writing, that the depositions to be taken in accordance with the order may be utilized at trial in the same manner and with the same effect as though the two doctors had remained in the defendants’ employ (see CPLR 3117, subd [a], par 2). As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Defendants’ time to execute the stipulation is extended until 10 days after the service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Under the circumstances of the instant case, we believe that the above modification, suggested by the defendants, will alleviate whatever prejudice may have inured to the plaintiffs under the original order. We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from an [556]*556order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 6, 1979, which (1) granted defendants’ motion for leave to renew and (2) upon renewal, vacated a prior order striking defendants’ answer and directing an inquest, upon condition, inter alia, that the defendants produce the two named physician-witnesses for an examination before trial. Order modified, by adding thereto a provision conditioning the relief to be afforded thereunder upon the further requirement that defendants stipulate, in writing, that the depositions to be taken in accordance with the order may be utilized at trial in the same manner and with the same effect as though the two doctors had remained in the defendants’ employ (see CPLR 3117, subd [a], par 2). As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Defendants’ time to execute the stipulation is extended until 10 days after the service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Under the circumstances of the instant case, we believe that the above modification, suggested by the defendants, will alleviate whatever prejudice may have inured to the plaintiffs under the original order. We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 555, 420 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovito-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1979.