From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Rosa v. Di Benedetto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1982
86 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

January 29, 1982


In a medical malpractice action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated August 15, 1980, which (1) granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, and (2) denied the defendants' respective motions for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's second cause of action (for wrongful death), with leave to renew after service of the amended complaint. Order reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint is denied, without prejudice to renewal upon the submission of proper papers, and defendants' respective motions for partial summary judgment are denied, without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiff's time to renew is extended until 30 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The affidavit of plaintiff's counsel does not constitute a sufficient affidavit of merits on the instant cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, as the facts upon which the cross motion is based do not lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the attorney (see McDermott v Village of Menands, 74 A.D.2d 661; Leonard Hosp. v. Messier, 32 A.D.2d 596; see, also, Vastola v. Maer, 48 A.D.2d 561, 567, affd 39 N.Y.2d 1019). They do, however, lie within the knowledge of the plaintiff administratrix and, under the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, she should be afforded an opportunity to submit such an affidavit (see Leonard Hosp. v Messier, supra). Since defendants' motions for partial summary judgment are addressed to the allegations of the original complaint, the outcome of their applications may well be dependent upon the resolution of plaintiff's cross motion, if renewed. Accordingly, they, too, should be afforded leave to renew. Mollen, P.J., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

De Rosa v. Di Benedetto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1982
86 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

De Rosa v. Di Benedetto

Case Details

Full title:MADELINE DE ROSA, as Administratrix of the Estate of VINCENT DE ROSA…

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1982

Citations

86 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Velez v. Springer

It has been repeatedly held that upon an application to amend a complaint to add a cause of action for…

Santoro v. Oppman

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their respective motion and…