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.
Doris JOHNSON, etc., et al., respondents, v. Martin I. POLLACK, etc., appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Martin I. Pollack M.D., d/b/a Richmond Physicians Services, P.C., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (SanGiorgio, J), entered January 30, 1998, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 13, 1998, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered January 30, 1998, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 13, 1998, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated November 13, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly determined that hearsay testimony which violates the Dead Man's Statute (CPLR 4519) may be admitted for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment (see, Silvestri v. Iannone, 261 A.D.2d 387, 689 N.Y.S.2d 241; Friedman v. Sills, 112 A.D.2d 343, 344, 491 N.Y.S.2d 794). Based on such testimony and other evidence, the Supreme Court properly determined that issues of fact existed as to whether the decedent complained to the appellant about back pain, whether electrocardiograms were a routine part of annual examinations of the decedent or were performed as a result of such complaints, and whether the appellant examined the decedent competently.
Although the Supreme Court erred in taking judicial notice of an excerpt from a treatise which may or may not be applicable to this case, upon granting reargument, it properly adhered to its prior determination in light of the aforementioned issues of fact.
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: May 24, 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)