Articles Posted in New York City

Published on:

This is an action to recover legal fees. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the counter claims made in the verified amended answer of the defendant. The defendant has filed a separate motion for leave to serve a second amended answer and to renew his prior motion to dismiss the complaint.

There are several counterclaims made by the defendant in his proposed answer including a counter claim for fraud, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty. He also added two additional counter claims in his amended answer, breach of the plain language requirement and breach of judiciary law section 427.

Case Facts

Continue reading

Published on:

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 4, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. On November 11, 1999 the 26-month-old plaintiff was seen by the defendant doctor who diagnosed viral tonsillitis and prescribed medications to alleviate her symptoms. Later that day, the plaintiff developed additional symptoms and was admitted to Elmhurst Hospital Center (hereinafter Elmhurst) on November 12, 1999. The admitting diagnosis was pneumonia based upon a chest X-ray and blood test. During the plaintiff’s 13-day hospital stay, various antibiotic treatments were administered. Shortly after the plaintiff’s discharge from the hospital on November 24, 1999 her mother noticed that the plaintiff did not respond to speech and sound, indicating hearing loss, which was ultimately determined to be complete and permanent.

A Queens Lawyer said that, in 2002 the plaintiff, by her mother, commenced the instant action against the defendant Health & Hospitals Corporation, alleging negligent failure to diagnose and treat meningitis, causing the plaintiff’s permanent hearing loss. In 2005, after defendant doctor was deposed as a nonparty witness, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding him as a defendant and alleging that he negligently failed to test for meningitis during the plaintiff’s office visit on November 11, 1999. A Lawyer said that, the Supreme Court denied defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, holding that conflicting expert medical opinion evidence raised a triable issue of fact.

The issue in this case is whether defendant doctor should be held liable for medical malpractice together with defendant Health & Hospitals Corporation.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a legal malpractice action being heard in the Supreme Court in New York County. The plaintiff is a lawyer who has brought forth this action against his former law firm partner. There are three causes of action being considered in this case. The first is professional malpractice, the second is breach of contract, and the third cause of action is a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Westchester defendants have moved for an order to dismiss the complaint as time barred by the statute of limitations, as time barred by the doctrine of laches, and for failure to state a cause of action.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

This is an action to recover damages for fraud. The New York City plaintiffs are appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Case Background

The plaintiffs in this case are an infant and his father. In 1987, the plaintiffs settled a medical malpractice action against an insured of the respondent in this case. The settlement included an annuity that would provide payments to the infant plaintiff in the sum of $3000 per month for life. The respondent estimated the present value of the entire settlement package to be $940,180.

Continue reading

Published on:

The issue before the court has to do with the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1986 that requires the Medical Malpractice Insurance Association to refund the stabilization reserve fund charges that had been collected for excess policies and applied by statute to offset deficits. The plaintiff in the case is challenging the constitutionality of the implementation and enforcement of certain provisions of this act.

Background Information

The Medical Malpractice Insurance Association or MMIA is a non-profit unincorporated association that is a legal entity separate from its members. The MMIA in NYC was created by chapter 109 section 17 of the laws created in 1975. The association was created after the insurer that covered the majority of surgeons and physicians for professional liability stated that they would no longer underwrite this type of insurance policy in the state of New York. The MMIA’s purpose was to provide a market for medical malpractice insurance that was not otherwise readily available.

Continue reading

Published on:

The petitioner in this case is seeking a judgment to require the Superintendent of Insurance to hold a hearing in regard to a decision that he made that reduced the petitioner’s proposed rate increase by approximately 85%. The Superintendent has cross moved to have this petition dismissed.

Case Background

The Long Island petitioner is a non-profit entity that is comprised of insurance companies that write personal liability insurance policies in the state of New York. Membership with the petitioner is required of companies that have the authority to write this type of insurance policy in the state. The petitioner is required to provide medical malpractice insurance to any physician or surgeon that is licensed in the state of New York. The amount of the policy is up to an aggregate limit of $3,000,000.

Continue reading

Published on:

A Lawyer said that, plaintiff is a provider of no-fault automobile liability insurance policies in New York City and defendants are professional corporations (hereinafter “PCs”) which were owned and operated by medical doctors. According to the pleadings, from 1998 until mid-2001, defendants rendered treatment to persons covered under no-fault policies issued by plaintiff. The covered insured patients were treated by licensed acupuncturists who were employees of defendant medical corporations. The covered insured patients executed facially-valid assignments of their no-fault benefits to defendant corporations. Defendant corporations submitted bills for the treatment provided by these licensed acupuncturists to plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the bills submitted by defendant corporations.

A Westchester source said that, plaintiff filed this action, alleging that defendants had improperly employed acupuncturists and that, based upon this organizational flaw, were operating illegally and were not entitled to the payments that plaintiffs made during the time period cited in the Complaint. The Complaint demands that defendant corporations refund all payments made by plaintiff for services provided by the licensed acupuncturists.

Another source said that, defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, while other defendants cross-move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim.

Continue reading

Published on:

On January 1, 2004, a man was found almost dead by the New York City fire Department Emergency Medical Staff Officials on 178th Street and Jamaica Avenue in Queens County. He was taken to Mary Immaculate Hospital where he died the following day. There was no identification on his person and he was unresponsive and unable to tell hospital personnel who he was. The hospital staff were not provided with a telephone number for any next of kin and were unable to notify his family. Per hospital policy, the hospital notified the police department. The hospitalfrom that point depended on the police department to notify any next of kin.

On January 3, 2004, the hospital made contact with the Medical Examiner’s Office. It is hospital policy to inquire at the Medical Examiner’s Office if a patient dies within 24 hours of being admitted to the hospital. The Medical Examiner’s Investigator was advised and made notations to that effect in his notes that the decedent’s next of kin had not been located at that time. The hospital contends that at the time that they notified the Medical Examiner’s office, they were no longer responsible for locating the next of kin. They state that that responsibility was transferred to the Medical Examiner’s office.

The Medical Examiner’s office had the man’s body for two months, yet according to his family, made no efforts to identify him or to contact his next of kin during the time that they were in possession of his body. The Medical Examiner’s office also made not attempts to contact the police department to determine if they had identified the man or contacted his next of kin. The hospital maintains that it did all that it could do to find out who the man was and to notify the family. The hospital contends that the failure on the part of the Medical Examiner’s office to notify the family should not be their responsibility.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Queens County. NYC in the state of New York. The question before the court is whether the mother of a still born child who alleges that she was caused to endure excruciating pain and unnecessary injury and delay by reason of malpractice of the defendants is able to recover for the alleged emotional and psychic harm that resulted from the still born birth.

Case Discussion

The question before the court is interesting as the defendants of the case have motions for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a cause of action that is cognizable under the laws of the state of New York.

Continue reading

Published on:

Sometime in August of 2002, plaintiff hired a law firm to represent her in a medical malpractice (personal injury) and wrongful death action concerning the death of her husband. According to the law firm hired, a lawyer, who was then an of counsel lawyer of the firm, was assigned to handle plaintiff’s case.

In early 2003, the underlying action for medical malpractice was commenced against defendants: the Medical Center, the Westchester County Health Care Corporation, and certain doctors.

Thereafter, plaintiff’s lawyer severed his relationship with the law firm hired. Plaintiff then opted to continue to be represented by the lawyer and discharged the law firm. However, sometime after, the lawyer also severed his relationship with the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff’s son continued to handle the case which was later continued by another law firm.

Continue reading

Contact Information