GONZALEZ v. GUIRGUIS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Steven GONZALEZ, etc., et al., appellants, v. Fayez GUIRGUIS, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Decided: September 27, 1999

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ. Napoli, Kaiser & Associates, L.L.P. (Scott T. Horn, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants. Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Kim A. Carnesi of counsel), for defendant-respondent Fayez Guirguis. Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein & Deutsch, L.L.P., New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for defendants-respondents Guy Kasten, Salvatore Farici, and New York Methodist Hospital. Santangelo, Benvenuto and Slattery (James W. Tuffin, Manhasset, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-respondent Ronald Seminara.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated April 16, 1998, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Fayez Guirguis, Guy Kasten, Salvatore Farici, and New York Methodist Hospital, and Ronald Seminara, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3042(d) insofar as asserted against them, and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs, over a two-year period, failed to comply with numerous court orders and directives concerning discovery, and failed to provide discovery with the requested specificity on certain issues.   Thus, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondents' separate motions to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them (see, Abreu v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 247 A.D.2d 238, 668 N.Y.S.2d 365).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard