Mandes v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandes v. Lee

278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13925

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 458 (Mandes v. Lee) 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

Mandes v. Lee, 278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the [459]*459Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated October 19, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiffs alleged spoliation of evidence was properly denied (see, Ahmad v Babylon Ford, 276 AD2d 513; McKain v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 274 AD2d 504; DiDomenico v C & S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 AD2d 41).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the [459]*459Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated October 19, 1999, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plaintiffs alleged spoliation of evidence was properly denied (see, Ahmad v Babylon Ford, 276 AD2d 513; McKain v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 274 AD2d 504; DiDomenico v C & S Aeromatik Supplies, 252 AD2d 41).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 458, 717 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandes-v-lee-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack