Whitney-Carrington v. New York Methodist Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitney-Carrington v. New York Methodist Hospital

289 A.D.2d 326, 734 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11989

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 326 (Whitney-Carrington v. New York Methodist 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

Whitney-Carrington v. New York Methodist Hospital, 289 A.D.2d 326, 734 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 8, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to include an additional cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to allege a cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital based upon the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 USC § 1395dd). While CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just,” if the proposed amendment is “patently lacking in merit,” it will not be permitted, and leave should be denied as a matter of law (Parisi v Leppard, 237 AD2d 419, 420; see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784). In this case, the proposed amendment was patently without merit (see, Reynolds v MaineGeneral Health, 218 F3d 78, 83; Vickers v Nash Gen. Hosp., 78 F3d 139, 145; Lear v Genesee Mem. Hosp., 254 AD2d 707). Accordingly, leave to amend was properly denied. H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 8, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to include an additional cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to allege a cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital based upon the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 USC § 1395dd). While CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just,” if the proposed amendment is “patently lacking in merit,” it will not be permitted, and leave should be denied as a matter of law (Parisi v Leppard, 237 AD2d 419, 420; see, Zabas v Kard, 194 AD2d 784). In this case, the proposed amendment was patently without merit (see, Reynolds v MaineGeneral Health, 218 F3d 78, 83; Vickers v Nash Gen. Hosp., 78 F3d 139, 145; Lear v Genesee Mem. Hosp., 254 AD2d 707). Accordingly, leave to amend was properly denied. H. Miller, J. P., Townes, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 326, 734 N.Y.S.2d 490, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-carrington-v-new-york-methodist-hospital-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack