Rodriguez v. Galin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Galin

13 A.D.3d 188, 785 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15305

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 188 (Rodriguez v. Galin) 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

Rodriguez v. Galin, 13 A.D.3d 188, 785 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), entered May 26, 2004, which denied the motions for summary judgment by third-party defendant Gould and defendant Freedman, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is sufficient evidence in the record of this medical malpractice action to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to the moving doctors’ participation in plaintiffs eye surgery. Notwithstanding defendant and third-party plaintiff Galin’s frequent invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during the course of his deposition, the motion court did not err in declining to dismiss the third-party complaint. The trial court may still direct the pro se Dr. Galin to make himself available for further deposition prior to commencement of trial of the third-party action. In the event [189]*189he should continue refusing to testify, the court can take appropriate steps at that time (see Federal Chandros v Silverite Constr. Co., 167 AD2d 315, 316 [1990], appeal dismissed and lv denied 77 NY2d 893 [1991]).

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), entered May 26, 2004, which denied the motions for summary judgment by third-party defendant Gould and defendant Freedman, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is sufficient evidence in the record of this medical malpractice action to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to the moving doctors’ participation in plaintiffs eye surgery. Notwithstanding defendant and third-party plaintiff Galin’s frequent invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during the course of his deposition, the motion court did not err in declining to dismiss the third-party complaint. The trial court may still direct the pro se Dr. Galin to make himself available for further deposition prior to commencement of trial of the third-party action. In the event [189]*189he should continue refusing to testify, the court can take appropriate steps at that time (see Federal Chandros v Silverite Constr. Co., 167 AD2d 315, 316 [1990], appeal dismissed and lv denied 77 NY2d 893 [1991]).

We have considered appellants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 188, 785 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-galin-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack