From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitney-Carrington v. N.Y. Methodist Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 2001
289 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

denying motion to amend to add EMTALA claim where patient was admitted and operated on due to pregnancy complications

Summary of this case from Neeseman v. Mt. Sinai W.

Opinion

2001-02703

Argued November 15, 2001.

December 10, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated January 8, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint to include an additional cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital.

RUBERT GROSS, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (SOLEDAD RUBERT of counsel), for appellants.

KOPFF, NARDELLI DOPF, LLP, New York, N.Y. (MARTIN B. ADAMS of counsel), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to allege a cause of action against the defendant New York Methodist Hospital based upon the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. — 1395dd). While CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just", if the proposed amendment is "patently lacking in merit", it will not be permitted, and leave should be denied as a matter of law (Parisi v. Leppard, 237 A.D.2d 419, 419-420; see, Zabas v. Kard, 194 A.D.2d 784). In this case, the proposed amendment was patently without merit (see, Reynolds v. MaineGeneral Health, 218 F.3d 78, 83; Vickers v. Nash General Hosp., 78 F.3d 139, 145; Lear v. Genesee Mem. Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 707). Accordingly, leave to amend was properly denied.

H. MILLER, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Whitney-Carrington v. N.Y. Methodist Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 2001
289 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

denying motion to amend to add EMTALA claim where patient was admitted and operated on due to pregnancy complications

Summary of this case from Neeseman v. Mt. Sinai W.
Case details for

Whitney-Carrington v. N.Y. Methodist Hosp

Case Details

Full title:SONIA WHITNEY-CARRINGTON, ET AL., Appellants, v. NEW YORK METHODIST…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 490

Citing Cases

Wyllie v. District Attorney, Co., Kings

However, since the evidence submitted by the defendants demonstrated that the occurrences surrounding the…

Water Club Homeowner's v. Town Board

Accordingly, paragraph 9 of the Restrictive Covenant is not illegal and the Town Board was entitled to a…