Toal v. Staten Island University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toal v. Staten Island University Hospital

300 A.D.2d 592, 752 N.Y.S.2d 372

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 592 (Toal v. Staten Island University Hospital) 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

Toal v. Staten Island University Hospital, 300 A.D.2d 592, 752 N.Y.S.2d 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) to obtain disclosure to aid in bringing an action, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 20, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is granted.

In this case, the facts alleged by the petitioners state a cause of action and the discovery which they seek is limited to obtaining the identity of prospective defendants (see Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 939). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

McGinity, J.,

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) to obtain disclosure to aid in bringing an action, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 20, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is granted.

In this case, the facts alleged by the petitioners state a cause of action and the discovery which they seek is limited to obtaining the identity of prospective defendants (see Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 939). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

McGinity, J.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 592, 752 N.Y.S.2d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toal-v-staten-island-university-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack