Pantaliano v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pantaliano v. Goodman

214 A.D.2d 607, 625 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102

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

DecidedApril 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 607 (Pantaliano v. Goodman) 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

Pantaliano v. Goodman, 214 A.D.2d 607, 625 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated April 21, 1993, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with [608]*608a conditional order of preclusion, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In order to avoid the adverse impact of an order of preclusion, a party must establish both a reasonable excuse for his or her default and a meritorious claim (see, Mariani v Fleishman, 160 AD2d 911). While the plaintiffs may have established a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the motion to preclude and in failing to comply with the conditional order of preclusion, they have failed to establish the meritorious nature of their claim. In a medical malpractice action, expert medical opinion evidence generally is required to demonstrate merit (see, Martinelli v Hessekiel, 132 AD2d 691; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1001). Under the circumstances of this case, since no affidavit of merit from a physician was provided, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated April 21, 1993, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with [608]*608a conditional order of preclusion, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In order to avoid the adverse impact of an order of preclusion, a party must establish both a reasonable excuse for his or her default and a meritorious claim (see, Mariani v Fleishman, 160 AD2d 911). While the plaintiffs may have established a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the motion to preclude and in failing to comply with the conditional order of preclusion, they have failed to establish the meritorious nature of their claim. In a medical malpractice action, expert medical opinion evidence generally is required to demonstrate merit (see, Martinelli v Hessekiel, 132 AD2d 691; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1001). Under the circumstances of this case, since no affidavit of merit from a physician was provided, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 607, 625 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantaliano-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack