From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montemurro v. Dodick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 1990
160 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court appropriately treated the motion to dismiss as one for partial summary judgment at the request of the parties (see, Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506). Moreover, the court properly denied the motion, as triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the conduct of the appellants was of such a nature as to warrant an award of punitive damages (see, e.g., Mullany v. Eiseman, 125 A.D.2d 457). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Montemurro v. Dodick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 1990
160 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Montemurro v. Dodick

Case Details

Full title:VIRGINIA MONTEMURRO, an Infant, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian…

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

Date published: Apr 2, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 779

Citing Cases

Graham v. Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Ctr.

The account of defendant Blaivas concerning what transpired thereafter differs sharply from that given by Dr.…

Melfi v. Mount Sinai Hosp.

The Court found that the surgeon's conduct in that case, just like the conduct of the defendant hospital in…