Ramos v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. County of Nassau

291 A.D.2d 487, 738 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1817

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 487 (Ramos v. County of Nassau) 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

Ramos v. County of Nassau, 291 A.D.2d 487, 738 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. The plaintiff’s further bill of particulars adequately provides a general statement “of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043 [a] [3]; see, Laukaitis v Ski Stop, 223 AD2d 627). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, 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 and wrongful death, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. The plaintiff’s further bill of particulars adequately provides a general statement “of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043 [a] [3]; see, Laukaitis v Ski Stop, 223 AD2d 627). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 487, 738 N.Y.S.2d 225, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack