Reid v. Rye Ridge Orthopedic Associates, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Rye Ridge Orthopedic Associates, P. C.

268 A.D.2d 574, 702 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 922

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 574 (Reid v. Rye Ridge Orthopedic Associates, P. C.) 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

Reid v. Rye Ridge Orthopedic Associates, P. C., 268 A.D.2d 574, 702 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated November 17, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint prior to any proof being taken at trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff did not serve a notice pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) and acknowledged he was not going to present expert opinion testimony to prove that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care. Accordingly, he was necessarily unable to make out a prima facie case, and the complaint was properly dismissed (see, Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538). Joy, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), dated November 17, 1998, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint prior to any proof being taken at trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff did not serve a notice pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) and acknowledged he was not going to present expert opinion testimony to prove that the defendants’ conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care. Accordingly, he was necessarily unable to make out a prima facie case, and the complaint was properly dismissed (see, Kalkan v Nyack Hosp., 214 AD2d 538). Joy, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 574, 702 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-rye-ridge-orthopedic-associates-p-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack