Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert BOLLINO, appellant, v. Gary HITZIG, etc., et al., defendants, Seymour Handler, etc., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered November 15, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered July 8, 2005, upon an order of the same court entered March 8, 2005, dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, as is in favor of the defendant Seymour Handler and against him.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The complaint was dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 after the plaintiff failed to appear on the date scheduled for jury selection. To be relieved of his default in appearing, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see McClaren v. Bell Atl., 30 A.D.3d 569, 817 N.Y.S.2d 395; Kein v. Zeno, 23 A.D.3d 351, 806 N.Y.S.2d 65; Rubenbauer v. Mekelburg, 22 A.D.3d 826, 803 N.Y.S.2d 183). Under the circumstances, the plaintiff's excuse that he was not prepared to proceed with the trial was not reasonable (see Emmett v. St. Peter's Hosp., 293 A.D.2d 446, 739 N.Y.S.2d 647; Wolosin v. Campo, 256 A.D.2d 332, 333, 681 N.Y.S.2d 358; Matter of Alario v. DeMarco, 149 A.D.2d 587, 589-590, 540 N.Y.S.2d 270). Furthermore, the affirmation of the plaintiff's medical expert was insufficient to demonstrate that the medical malpractice cause of action was meritorious, since the expert failed to state with specificity, inter alia, his observations as to the procedures or treatments performed and the alleged deviations from the acceptable standards of medical care by the respondent (see Perez v. Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 A.D.2d 457, 688 N.Y.S.2d 195; Iazzetta v. Vicenzi, 243 A.D.2d 540, 663 N.Y.S.2d 109; Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein, 182 A.D.2d 743, 744, 582 N.Y.S.2d 761). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit from someone with personal knowledge of the facts with respect to his remaining causes of action. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 28, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)