From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirchmeyer v. Subramanian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: We find that, under the circumstances of this case, the affidavit of decedent's physician, proffered in support of the motion, constituted the presentation of additional facts which sufficed to make plaintiff's motion a motion to renew (see, Roberts v. Narcissus Boutique, 72 A.D.2d 808). Therefore, this appeal is properly before us since an appeal lies from the denial of a motion to renew (see, Seabrook Realty Corp. v. 139 W. Mut. Assocs., 60 A.D.2d 821).

Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's renewal motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action for wrongful death constituted an improvident exercise of its discretion. Contrary to defendants' argument, the physician's affidavit of merit submitted by plaintiff adequately demonstrated a causal connection between defendants' alleged malpractice and decedent's death (see, Buono v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 151 A.D.2d 633; Ullrich v. Rocking Horse Ranch, 138 A.D.2d 372).

All concur, except Denman and Boomer, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm, in the following memorandum.


In this medical malpractice action, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to assert a cause of action for wrongful death because she failed to submit competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged negligence and decedent's suicide. The court did, however, grant plaintiff leave to renew her motion on submission of a medical affidavit establishing that causal connection. Upon renewal, plaintiff submitted a medical affidavit which asserted that decedent was depressed and anxious as a result of his heart problems and physical disabilities and that his suicide was proximately caused by those conditions.

In our view, the court properly denied plaintiff's motion because there was no competent medical proof of any causal connection between defendants' alleged negligence and decedent's suicide (see, Mahoney v. Sharma, 110 A.D.2d 627; Fiorentino v. Cobble Hill Nursing Home, 101 A.D.2d 825). Indeed, the medical affidavit did not even refer to any acts of defendants as bearing on decedent's death.


Summaries of

Kirchmeyer v. Subramanian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Kirchmeyer v. Subramanian

Case Details

Full title:ADELLA KIRCHMEYER, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 957

Citing Cases

Rubick v. Atkins

661 [2d Dept 1995]). The presentation of expert evidence, by way of a physician's affidavit or affirmation,…

Rubick v. Atkins

expert evidence, by way of a physician's affidavit or affirmation, causally linking the defendant's alleged…