Published on:

The case before the Westchester court is an action for a declaratory judgment that the defendant insurance company is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff under a lawyers professional liability insurance policy. The plaintiff is an attorney whose practice is concentrated mainly in criminal defense.

Case Background

The plaintiff attorney was retained to represent a defendant that had been indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury and charged with various counts of sodomy in the first degree as well as several other forcible sexual conduct crimes with his daughter. The alleged acts were said to occur between March of 1995 and December of 1998. The victim was between 10 and 13 years old at the time the acts took place. The defendant was indicted in New York County for similar activity as well.

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 appeal involves new legislation that concerns medical malpractice actions. The issue before the Supreme Court Appellate Division is whether or not the plaintiff’s failure to timely file a notice of the medical malpractice action was properly excused by the Supreme Court.

Case Facts

In March of 1986, the Queens plaintiff individually and as the administrator of her deceased infant’s estate started this action to recover damages for her daughter’s death as well as the conscious pain and suffering predicated by the Staten Island defendant physician’s alleged medical malpractice that resulted in the death of the infant.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Long Island plaintiff in this case started this action as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased mother. She is seeking to recover money damages for the personal injuries her mother sustained while under the custody of the defendant hospital. The plaintiff has now moved for leave to submit a belated notice of medical malpractice. The defendant is cross moving for the action to be dismissed on the ground that it is time barred by the statute of limitations for medical malpractice.

Case Facts

The mother of the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant Queens hospital with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease on dialysis. On the 27th of August, 2001, the decedent fell on the floor of the transplant unit. She fell again on the third of September, 2001 and sustained a blunt impact to her head. Two days later a CT scan was performed. The patient fell again on the 22nd of September and allegedly as a result of all of these falls she sustained severe head injuries. Ultimately, the mother lost consciousness and had to be placed on a ventilator. She then died on the 23rd of September, 2001.

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 Staten Island plaintiff in this case is appealing an order made in the Supreme Court of Kings County. The order that is being appealed by the plaintiff denied his motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint as made against the defendant. The entire case stems from an underlying medical malpractice suit.

Court Discussion

Under the plain language of the insurance policy in question the plaintiff is not covered for contractual liability that was assumed by entering into service agreements with the independent contractors in the case. However, the plaintiff could have been held vicariously liable for the actions of the independent contractors and for that reason the plaintiff is entitled to recover his legal costs for defending against his own liability.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division and First Department. The original judgment was made in the Supreme Court of New York County and awarded $61,478.40 against the defendants.

Case Background

The plaintiff in the case provided medical malpractice liability insurance for a dental center. The premiums for the insurance policy were based on the number of outpatient visits and adjusted by a stabilization fund charge. The policy was renewed twice and at the end of three years there was a premium balance of $40,795. The plaintiff sued for these premiums and obtained a judgment on liability.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Queens defendant is appealing an order that declared they had the obligation to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action against him by the administratrix of the estate of the deceased. The order that is being appealed denied the cross motion for summary judgment and declared that the insurance policies in question were in full force and effect and invoked the duty of the defendant to defend.

Case Background

The plaintiff applied to the defendant insurance association for professional liability insurance coverage in January of 1981. The insurance association made an error that resulted in the policy not being issued until June of 1982. There were two policies issued at this time. The first policy was in effect from February of 1981 through February of 1982 and is referred to as the 1981 policy. The second policy was in effect from February 1982 through February 1983 and is referred to as the 1982 policy.

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 appeal before the court raises the question as to whether a patient of a medical group that has allegedly suffered from an injury caused by malpractice of the doctors that are associated with the group is entitled to the benefit of the continuous treatment doctrine against the doctors that have allegedly committed the malpractice where the patient has continued to receive treatment for the same injury, illness, or condition from other members of the same group after the alleged wrongdoing doctors have left the group.

Case Background

The defendants are two physicians who left the group. They have moved for summary judgment at Special Term on the basis of the alleged termination of the relationship of each of the movants with the other defendants that were their former partners. They argue that upon leaving the group the statute of limitations started to run for any acts of malpractice that they may have committed while a member of the group. As a consequence of this argument, the action in this particular case that was started in February of 1980 is time barred.

Continue reading

Contact Information