From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffmann v. Salitan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 12, 1994
203 A.D.2d 91 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 12, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).


Plaintiff contended that she sustained her burden of proof by showing that defendant continued to treat her after he first injected her nose with Kenalog 10, a steroid, which allegedly caused plaintiff's deformity. The record establishes that the initial treatment was in preparation for surgery after plaintiff returned from vacation (see, Ward v Kaufman, 120 A.D.2d 929). Plaintiff kept in contact with defendant by telephone and defendant allegedly examined her nose a final time on February 10, 1989 (see, McDermott v Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 406).

While plaintiff did not move for a default judgment until three months after the time period permitted under the statute had expired (CPLR 3215 [c]), plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Borgia v Interboro Gen. Hosp., 59 N.Y.2d 802), and furnished an affidavit of merit from a physician attesting that her cause of action has merit (see, Mosberg v Elahi, 80 N.Y.2d 941).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Hoffmann v. Salitan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 12, 1994
203 A.D.2d 91 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Hoffmann v. Salitan

Case Details

Full title:JANET S. HOFFMANN, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SALITAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 12, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 91 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 616

Citing Cases

Moxson v. United Airlines

The plaintiff does not deny that a default in appearance in the State action occurred on or about July 24,…

LaValle v. Astoria Const. Paving Corp.

While plaintiffs did not move for a default judgment within a year of defendant's default (see, CPLR…