Rosario v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

119 A.D.3d 490, 990 N.Y.S.2d 506

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

DecidedJuly 31, 2014

Docket15185/05

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 490 (Rosario v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Rosario v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 119 A.D.3d 490, 990 N.Y.S.2d 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered August 27, 2012, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim as to the infant plaintiff alone, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon consideration of the factors relevant to deciding a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, we find that the court properly granted plaintiffs motion (see Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320 [1st Dept 2003]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay is not alone fatal to their motion {id.). Plaintiffs’ expert affidavits show that, from the medical records, defendant had actual knowledge of the facts underlying plaintiffs’ theory of a departure from the accepted standard of pediatric care with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of the mother’s placental infection and her fetal distress and subsequent self-extubation, and defendant’s experts failed to refute this showing (see Alvarez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [North Cent. Bronx Hosp.], 101 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2012]). In contrast to Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Lincoln Hosp.) (101 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 860 [2013]), relied on by defendant, where “the hospital records [did] not suggest any injury attributable to malpractice,” plaintiffs’ experts explained how defendant’s failures caused additional injuries to the already compromised infant, who was born at 26 weeks’ gestation.

Defendant is not substantially prejudiced by the delay since the operative facts of the claim are contained in the records, and the case will turn primarily on those records, rather than on witnesses’ memories (see e.g. Leeds v Lenox Hill Hosp., 6 AD3d 232 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered August 27, 2012, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim as to the infant plaintiff alone, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon consideration of the factors relevant to deciding a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, we find that the court properly granted plaintiffs motion (see Matter of Dubowy v City of New York, 305 AD2d 320 [1st Dept 2003]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay is not alone fatal to their motion {id.). Plaintiffs’ expert affidavits show that, from the medical records, defendant had actual knowledge of the facts underlying plaintiffs’ theory of a departure from the accepted standard of pediatric care with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of the mother’s placental infection and her fetal distress and subsequent self-extubation, and defendant’s experts failed to refute this showing (see Alvarez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [North Cent. Bronx Hosp.], 101 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2012]). In contrast to Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Lincoln Hosp.) (101 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 860 [2013]), relied on by defendant, where “the hospital records [did] not suggest any injury attributable to malpractice,” plaintiffs’ experts explained how defendant’s failures caused additional injuries to the already compromised infant, who was born at 26 weeks’ gestation.

Defendant is not substantially prejudiced by the delay since the operative facts of the claim are contained in the records, and the case will turn primarily on those records, rather than on witnesses’ memories (see e.g. Leeds v Lenox Hill Hosp., 6 AD3d 232 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 490, 990 N.Y.S.2d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack