From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giovinco v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2000
276 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted September 11, 2000

October 2, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated September 24, 1999, which denied his motion for leave to serve an amended answer raising an affirmative defense that the plaintiff lacked capacity to commence this action, and for summary judgment dismissing the action due to the plaintiff's lack of capacity.

Vardaro Helwig, Smithtown, N.Y. (Marc A. Gersten of counsel), for appellant.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although leave to serve an amended pleading should be liberally granted, leave should be denied, as a matter of law, where the proposed amendment is "patently lacking in merit" (Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 A.D.2d 718; see, Bonnen v. Chiang, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 8, 2000]; Perrini v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 541). Contrary to the defendant's contention, as a litigant in a proceeding under chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. ch 13), the plaintiff possessed the requisite capacity to maintain this medical malpractice action (see, Olick v. Parker Parsley Petroleum Co., 145 F.3d 513; accord, Matter of Danwood Properties/78 v. Thorson, 209 F.3d 114; Cable v. Ivy Tech. State Coll., 200 F.3d 467; Maritime Elec. Co. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1209; Murray v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 248 B.R. 484; Matter of Bowker, 245 B.R. 192; Matter of Griner, 240 B.R. 432; Donato v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 230 B.R. 418; see also, Matter of Southern Housing v. Moore, 2000 WL 432433 [Ala., April 21, 2000]; Dance v. Louisiana State Univ. Med. Cent. at Shreveport, 749 So.2d 870; cf., Goldstein v. St. John's Hosp., 267 A.D.2d 426; Pinto v. Ancona, 262 A.D.2d 472). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer interposing the affirmative defense of lack of capacity, and for summary judgment thereon, was properly denied.


Summaries of

Giovinco v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2000
276 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Giovinco v. Goldman

Case Details

Full title:YVONNE GIOVINCO, RESPONDENT, v. THEODORE L. GOLDMAN, ETC., APPELLANT

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
713 N.Y.S.2d 700

Citing Cases

West v. Young

In contrast, the Second Department held in Giovinco v. Goldman, 276 A.D.2d 469, 713 N.Y.S.2d 700 (2d…

Nicke v. Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C.

Capacity to sue concerns a litigant's power to appear and bring its grievance before the court (see Community…