Schneider v. Solowey

141 A.D.2d 813, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 27, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 813 (Schneider v. Solowey) 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
Schneider v. Solowey, 141 A.D.2d 813, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), entered September 25, 1987, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment which was granted in an order of the same court, dated April 27, 1987, and, upon reargument, vacated that order and denied the defendant’s motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The granting of a motion for reargument is within the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion, provided the movant shows that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. Under the circumstances the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument and acted properly in vacating its earlier determination granting partial summary judgment to the defendant. Upon its review of the continuous treatment doctrine as well as the defendant’s own testimony during his deposition as to the relationship between the conditions being treated, it properly concluded that an issue of fact existed as to whether there was a continuous course of treatment, thereby precluding partial summary judgment on the ground of the Statute of Limitations. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Philip v. New York Foundling
2026 NY Slip Op 30958(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Waheed v. Barar
2026 NY Slip Op 30689(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Ciocca v. Shats
2026 NY Slip Op 30642(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Figueroa v. Jewish Home Lifecare Manhattan
2025 NY Slip Op 31010(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. De Liriano
2025 NY Slip Op 30037(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Bizfund LLC v. Ocean Auto Group LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 33183(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Altairi v. Cineus
45 A.D.3d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Greene v. Mullen
39 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Bush v. City of New York
195 Misc. 2d 882 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Albert v. Wolf
194 Misc. 2d 126 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)
Russac v. Crest Hollow Country Club
252 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
McClinchy v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
198 A.D.2d 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis
182 A.D.2d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 A.D.2d 813, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-solowey-nyappdiv-1988.