Montemurro v. Dodick

160 A.D.2d 690
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 2, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 690 (Montemurro v. Dodick) 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
Montemurro v. Dodick, 160 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Jack M. Dodick, Thomas A. Poole and Carl V. Fasano appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered March 7, 1989, which denied their motion to dismiss those portions of the plaintiffs’ second amended verified complaint which seek punitive damages against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court appropriately treated the motion to dismiss as one for partial summary judgment at the request of the parties (see, Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506). Moreover, the court properly denied the motion, as triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the conduct of the appellants was of such a nature as to warrant an award of punitive damages (see, e.g., Mullany v Eiseman, 125 AD2d 457). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Baume v. 212 E. 10 N. Y. Bar Ltd.
222 A.D.2d 211 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Graham v. Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center
185 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.D.2d 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montemurro-v-dodick-nyappdiv-1990.