From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zappolo v. Putnam Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1986
117 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

February 3, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.).


Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Special Term properly denied the branch of plaintiffs' motion which was to strike the answer of the defendant hospital or, alternatively, to direct the hospital to submit to a further examination before trial. It appears that the hospital has complied, to the extent possible, with plaintiffs' notice and with the prior orders directing it to submit to an examination before trial. However, most of the medical personnel having personal knowledge of decedent's case are no longer employed by the defendant hospital and it cannot be compelled to produce its former employees for an examination before trial (see, Frankel v French Polyclinic Med. School Health Center, 70 A.D.2d 947). Thus, plaintiffs must proceed to examine such persons in the manner provided for nonparty witnesses (CPLR 3106 [a]).

Finally, plaintiffs' claim that the order appealed from effectively overruled a prior order made by a court of coordinate jurisdiction is of no avail on this appeal, inasmuch as the doctrine of the "'law of the case'" does not bind an appellate court (Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 165; Wilson v McCarthy, 53 A.D.2d 860). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zappolo v. Putnam Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1986
117 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Zappolo v. Putnam Hospital Center

Case Details

Full title:V. JAMES ZAPPOLO et al., Appellants, v. PUTNAM HOSPITAL CENTER…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1986

Citations

117 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Souffrant v. Star Insurance Company

Therefore, the failure of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to hold the hearing was a violation of the law of…

Schneider v. Melmarkets Inc.

We reverse. The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs' cross motion to compel the defendant to…