From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryo v. Minerva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-04425

Submitted November 21, 2001.

January 14, 2002.

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, Long Island Orthopaedic Group., P.C., M. Schuss, Arnold Koopersmith, and Robert Garroway, defendants in Action No. 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against them, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Santangelo, Benvenuto Slattery (James W. Tuffin, Manhasset, N Y, of counsel), for appellants.

Cardali Cardali, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Susan Tracy and Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, ACTING P.J., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment because discovery had not yet been completed (see, CPLR 3212[f]; Rosa v. Colonial Tr., 276 A.D.2d 781; Campbell v. City of New York, 220 A.D.2d 476, 477).

RITTER, ACTING P.J., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ryo v. Minerva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Ryo v. Minerva

Case Details

Full title:OAK RAE RYO, ET AL., plaintiffs, v. FRANK MINERVA, defendant. (ACTION NO…

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

Jara v. City of New York

Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to prove that they are subject to Labor Law Section 240(1)…

German v. Interfaith Medical Center

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court…