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.
Laura Santos PEREZ, et al., respondents, v. ASTORIA GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Astoria General Hospital, Inc., appeals, and the defendant Bhupendra R. Patel, M.D., individually and d/b/a Broadway Cardiopulmonary, P.C., separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated June 19, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to vacate the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants, based on the plaintiffs' failure to appear at a pre-trial conference.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to vacate the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants is denied, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
To vacate the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants due to their default in appearing at a scheduled pretrial conference, the plaintiffs had to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, Martinez v. Otis El. Co., 213 A.D.2d 523, 624 N.Y.S.2d 43; Brown v. Ryder Truck Rental, 172 A.D.2d 477, 567 N.Y.S.2d 831). Although the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' default resulting from law-office failure (see, CPLR 2005; Brown v. Ryder Truck Rental, supra), the affidavit of the plaintiffs' medical expert in the instant case was insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action against the appellants. In his affidavit, the expert failed to state with specificity his observations as to procedures or treatments performed and/or the alleged deviations from the acceptable standards of medical care by the appellants (see, Iazzetta v. Vicenzi, 243 A.D.2d 540, 663 N.Y.S.2d 109; Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein, 182 A.D.2d 743, 582 N.Y.S.2d 761; Barton v. Jablon, 181 A.D.2d 755, 581 N.Y.S.2d 101; Wulster v. Rubinstein, 126 A.D.2d 545, 510 N.Y.S.2d 668; Friedberg v. Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assoc., 122 A.D.2d 194, 504 N.Y.S.2d 731).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 12, 1999
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)