From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dahlke v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1999
267 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 9, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 16, 1998, which granted plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Brian Schochet for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy for Defendants-Appellants.

ELLERIN, P.J., WILLIAMS, LERNER, RUBIN, SAXE, JJ.


In this medical malpractice action, plaintiffs' proposed amendment to their complaint to include, under their previously asserted cause of action for lack of informed consent, a claim for punitive damages, was not, given the deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendant doctor, plainly without merit and, accordingly, amendment of the complaint to include the claim for punitive damages was properly permitted (see, Atherton v. 21 E. 92nd St., 149 A.D.2d 354, 356; Hawkins v. Genesee Place Corp., 139 A.D.2d 433).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Dahlke v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1999
267 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Dahlke v. Frankel

Case Details

Full title:LOIS DAHLKE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. VICTOR H. FRANKEL, et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 683

Citing Cases

Paretta v. Med. Offices for Human Reproduction

Plaintiffs have alleged grossly negligent or reckless conduct, and defendants have not established that…

Paretta v. HUMAN REPRODUCTION

Furthermore, at this stage and on this record, the court will not dismiss plaintiffs' allegation that they…