From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. Batash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2007
36 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2004-10709.

January 16, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Leo Batash appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated July 19, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Patrick F. Adams, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Frank Cali of counsel), for appellant.

Stuart R. Shaw, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Florio, Fisher and Dillon, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Leo Batash for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that there was no evidence that Batash had complied with certain discovery demands, which were crucial as to when the defendants' treatment of the plaintiff ended ( see Jones v Town of Delaware, 251 AD2d 876; Levy v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 232 AD2d 377; Wohlgemuth v Logan, 144 AD2d 160).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. Batash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2007
36 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Ortiz v. Batash

Case Details

Full title:YOHANNY ORTIZ, Respondent, v. LEO BATASH, Appellant, et al., Defendant

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

Date published: Jan 16, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 285
826 N.Y.S.2d 578

Citing Cases

Fichter v. G. Fazio Constr. Co., Inc.

Neither Concept nor Fazio should be able to prevail on their respective motions for summary judgment when it…