From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bossio v. Fiorillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1995
222 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 11, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Mary Bossio visited the offices of Drs. Frances P. Fiorillo and Elliott Robbins to submit to a mammogram examination. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to advise Ms. Bossio or her referring physician of a three-millimeter breast nodule. As a result, Ms. Bossio sought no further medical treatment until 26 months later when the mass had grown to a cancerous nine-millimeter nodule and had to be surgically removed. The remaining contention in her complaint is that the ensuing 26-month delay before further evaluation caused her emotional harm and fear of cancer.

The defendant Dr. Fiorillo moved to "renew and reargue" her prior motion for summary judgment claiming that "new evidence" consisting of the deposition testimony of Dr. Robbins and the affidavit of her medical expert establish that she did not have a doctor-patient relationship with the plaintiff, she was not a partner with the treating physician, and that even assuming the existence of a "quasi doctor-patient relationship," the plaintiffs failed to set forth any proof that she may be liable. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Dr. Fiorillo's motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument of her prior motion for summary judgment, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time she submitted her original motion for summary judgment (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 A.D.2d 639). In addition, Dr. Fiorillo has failed to offer a valid excuse as to why the affidavit of her medical expert, offered upon her motion to "renew and reargue", was not submitted with her original motion for summary judgment (see, Grumman Aerospace Corp. v Rice, 199 A.D.2d 365). Therefore, her motion to "renew and reargue" is really a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bossio v. Fiorillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 1995
222 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Bossio v. Fiorillo

Case Details

Full title:MARY BOSSIO et al., Respondents, v. FRANCES P. FIORILLO et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 11, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

Vaynshteyn v. Cohen

Finally, the court properly treated the plaintiffs' motion to renew and/or reargue as a motion to reargue.…

Tsavalos v. N.P.E. Rest. Corp.

Because the motion was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion, it…