Medina v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

22 A.D.3d 814, 802 N.Y.S.2d 627

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for [815] medical malpractice, the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center) appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 18, 2004, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of the plaintiff Andrew Medina, nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center) which was for leave to renew, as it was not based upon new facts which would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2005]; cf. Schwartz v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 174, 176 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, 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 [815] medical malpractice, the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center) appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 18, 2004, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of the plaintiff Andrew Medina, nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center) which was for leave to renew, as it was not based upon new facts which would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2005]; cf. Schwartz v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 174, 176 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Medina v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp., 22 A.D.3d 814, 802 N.Y.S.2d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 814 (Medina v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related