Stanski v. Ezersky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanski v. Ezersky

250 A.D.2d 422, 673 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5416

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 12, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 4, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied. The medical articles on which plaintiff relies to show that a causal relationship be[423]*423tween the anesthesia he was administered and the abdominal myoclonus he suffers from is generally accepted in the scientific community either were not in existence at the time the action was pending, or, if they were in existence, could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence and introduced at the trial (see, 10 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5015.07; Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 230 AD2d 32, 39). Defendant Mondora’s application to impose sanctions on plaintiffs attorneys for frivolous conduct is denied. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 4, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied. The medical articles on which plaintiff relies to show that a causal relationship be[423]*423tween the anesthesia he was administered and the abdominal myoclonus he suffers from is generally accepted in the scientific community either were not in existence at the time the action was pending, or, if they were in existence, could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence and introduced at the trial (see, 10 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5015.07; Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 230 AD2d 32, 39). Defendant Mondora’s application to impose sanctions on plaintiffs attorneys for frivolous conduct is denied. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Stanski v. Ezersky, 250 A.D.2d 422, 673 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 422 (Stanski v. Ezersky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related