Ryo v. Minerva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryo v. Minerva

290 A.D.2d 434, 738 N.Y.S.2d 855

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 434 (Ryo v. Minerva) 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

Ryo v. Minerva, 290 A.D.2d 434, 738 N.Y.S.2d 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, Long Island Orthopaedic Group., P.C., M. Schuss, Arnold Koopersmith, and Robert Garroway, defendants in Action No. 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against them, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment because discovery had not yet been completed (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781; Campbell v City of New York, 220 AD2d 476, 477). Ritter, Acting P.J., Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, Long Island Orthopaedic Group., P.C., M. Schuss, Arnold Koopersmith, and Robert Garroway, defendants in Action No. 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against them, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment because discovery had not yet been completed (see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781; Campbell v City of New York, 220 AD2d 476, 477). Ritter, Acting P.J., Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 434, 738 N.Y.S.2d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryo-v-minerva-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack