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

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

DecidedMay 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 422 (Stanski v. Ezersky) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 422, 673 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanski-v-ezersky-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack