From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Imperato v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 2011
82 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 3776.

March 1, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 5, 2010, which granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate an order precluding their expert witness from testifying at trial and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker LLP, New York (Richard Ng of counsel), for appellants.

Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York (Arnold E. DiJoseph, III of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.


Plaintiffs' counsel's debilitating illness, coupled with "law office failure," was a reasonable excuse warranting relief from the preclusion order entered on default ( see Frenchy's Bar Grill v United Int'l. Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 177, 177-178). Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosure sufficiently delineated defendants' alleged departures from accepted medical practice and their causal connection to plaintiffs' injuries ( Ford v Empire Med. Group, 123 AD2d 820, 821-822; see also Levy v New York City Hous. Auth., 287 AD2d 281). Moreover, there is no evidence that the failure to timely disclose was willful, contumacious or manifested bad faith ( Tsai v Hernandez, 284 AD2d 116, 117).


Summaries of

Imperato v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 2011
82 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Imperato v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:MARYANN IMPERATO et al., Respondents, v. MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 1, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1532
917 N.Y.S.2d 857

Citing Cases

Mergent Servs. v. Queens Tribune Publications

In the circumstances here present, and to achieve substantial fairness (Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City…

Loucks v. Klimek

Here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff had a reasonable…