Tucker v. Huntington Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucker v. Huntington Hospital

208 A.D.2d 522, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 522 (Tucker v. Huntington 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

Tucker v. Huntington Hospital, 208 A.D.2d 522, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered April 12, 1993, as denied its motion for preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3042 with respect to paragraphs 3 (a), (b), (k), 6, and 11 of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that specified paragraphs of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars failed to adequately apprise it of the plaintiff’s theories of negligence and his injuries. Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendant’s motion with respect to these paragraphs (see, Sager v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 170 AD2d 949; cf., Padro v Boulevard Hosp., 92 AD2d 888). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered April 12, 1993, as denied its motion for preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3042 with respect to paragraphs 3 (a), (b), (k), 6, and 11 of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We reject the defendant’s contention that specified paragraphs of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars failed to adequately apprise it of the plaintiff’s theories of negligence and his injuries. Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendant’s motion with respect to these paragraphs (see, Sager v Rochester Gen. Hosp., 170 AD2d 949; cf., Padro v Boulevard Hosp., 92 AD2d 888). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 522, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-huntington-hospital-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack