Home/New York Court of Appeals/Pearson v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

Pearson v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

889 N.E.2d 493, 10 N.Y.3d 852, 859 N.Y.S.2d 614
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 6, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 889 N.E.2d 493 (Pearson v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pearson v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 889 N.E.2d 493, 10 N.Y.3d 852, 859 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y. 2008).

Opinion

10 N.Y.3d 852 (2008)
889 N.E.2d 493
859 N.Y.S.2d 614

SHANICE PEARSON, an Infant by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, MICHELLE PEARSON, Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER) et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided May 6, 2008.

*854 Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, appellant.

Leahey & Johnson, P.C., New York City (Peter James Johnson, Jr., of counsel), for Neville Morgan and another, appellants.

Law Offices of Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, P.C., Yonkers (John M. Daly of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

On these facts, the courts below acted within their discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for permission to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 538 [2006]). Similarly, the courts below did not abuse their discretion by granting plaintiff's motion to discontinue the action without prejudice to renewal when the full extent of plaintiff's injuries are ascertainable (see CPLR 3217).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

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

Related

Matter of Townson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Wally G., an Infant,by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Yoselin T. v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Metropolitan Hospital)
57 N.E.3d 1067 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
Fiacco v. Engler
79 A.D.3d 1206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Meacham v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
77 A.D.3d 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
889 N.E.2d 493, 10 N.Y.3d 852, 859 N.Y.S.2d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-new-york-city-health-and-hospitals-corpo-ny-2008.