Schrage v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schrage v. City of New York

121 A.D.2d 619, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58603

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

DecidedJune 23, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 619 (Schrage v. City of New York) 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

Schrage v. City of New York, 121 A.D.2d 619, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damáges for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated May 10, 1985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying their application to submit the matter to a medical malpractice panel for a hearing pursuant to Judiciary Law § 148-a.

On the court’s own motion, the appellants’ notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, said application is referred to Justice Mangano, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Mangano.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ application to submit the matter to a medical malpractice panel is granted.

We find that the defendants’ application was not so untimely as to warrant its denial. Neither does the mere existence of disputed factual issues preclude the submission of this matter to a medical malpractice panel (see, Bleich v Bono, 91 AD2d 911). Rather, we conclude that the record establishes the existence of medical issues which are subject to panel review. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damáges for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated May 10, 1985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying their application to submit the matter to a medical malpractice panel for a hearing pursuant to Judiciary Law § 148-a.

On the court’s own motion, the appellants’ notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, said application is referred to Justice Mangano, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Mangano.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ application to submit the matter to a medical malpractice panel is granted.

We find that the defendants’ application was not so untimely as to warrant its denial. Neither does the mere existence of disputed factual issues preclude the submission of this matter to a medical malpractice panel (see, Bleich v Bono, 91 AD2d 911). Rather, we conclude that the record establishes the existence of medical issues which are subject to panel review. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 619, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schrage-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack