Williamson v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williamson v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

184 A.D.2d 564, 584 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7931

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

DecidedJune 8, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 564 (Williamson v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center) 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

Williamson v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, 184 A.D.2d 564, 584 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated June 14, 1990, as, inter alia, denied its cross motion for a final order of preclusion and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the court should have granted its cross motion for a final order of preclusion based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its demand for a bill of particulars. It is unclear whether the conditional order was ever served upon the plaintiff’s attorneys. In any event, shortly after the court granted the conditional order of preclusion the plaintiff died. The record reveals that an administrator was subsequently appointed and substituted in this action in his stead. Moreover, service of the bill of particulars was hindered by the defendant’s failure to provide the plaintiff’s attorneys with a copy of the hospital record (see, Smith v Palmieri, 103 AD2d 739). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the plaintiff additional time to serve a bill of particulars (cf., Donovan v Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 AD2d 706; White v Leonard, 140 AD2d 518). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, 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 of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pizzuto, J.), dated June 14, 1990, as, inter alia, denied its cross motion for a final order of preclusion and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the court should have granted its cross motion for a final order of preclusion based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its demand for a bill of particulars. It is unclear whether the conditional order was ever served upon the plaintiff’s attorneys. In any event, shortly after the court granted the conditional order of preclusion the plaintiff died. The record reveals that an administrator was subsequently appointed and substituted in this action in his stead. Moreover, service of the bill of particulars was hindered by the defendant’s failure to provide the plaintiff’s attorneys with a copy of the hospital record (see, Smith v Palmieri, 103 AD2d 739). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the plaintiff additional time to serve a bill of particulars (cf., Donovan v Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 AD2d 706; White v Leonard, 140 AD2d 518). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 564, 584 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-brookdale-hospital-medical-center-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack