From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1982
86 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

January 18, 1982


In a medical malpractice action, defendant St. Charles Hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated March 30, 1981, which (1) denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion, and (2) granted plaintiffs' cross motion to the extent of relieving them of their default and granting them leave to serve a bill of particulars, upon condition that plaintiffs' attorney pay to appellant $500. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the cross motion is denied. The bill of particulars was demanded on February 14, 1980. In the absence of a response, appellant moved for an order of preclusion. A 20-day conditional order of preclusion was granted on June 9, 1980. This order was disregarded until plaintiffs belatedly furnished a bill of particulars as part of their opposition to appellant's motion to dismiss, some nine months after the bill was originally due and four and one-half months beyond the time fixed by the court order. It was an abuse of discretion to have denied appellant's motion since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate (1) a reasonable excuse for the delay and (2) the legal merits of their claim (see Harris v. Brooklyn Hosp. at Brooklyn Cumberland Med. Center, 81 A.D.2d 658; Kahn v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 60 A.D.2d 862). The proffered excuse, that the delay was due to a filing or clerical error, can only be characterized as "law office failure," which is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support plaintiffs' cross motion (see Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594; Verre v. Rosas, 47 N.Y.2d 795). Moreover, the conclusory affirmation of plaintiffs' attorney is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim (see Wolfe v. Town of Hempstead, Dept. of Parks Recreation, 75 A.D.2d 811); instead, evidentiary facts should have been submitted by a medical expert (see Sussman v. Franklin Gen. Hosp., 77 A.D.2d 567). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Cohalan and Thompson, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1982
86 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital

Case Details

Full title:MARIE FERRIGNO et al., Respondents, v. ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Jan 18, 1982

Citations

86 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Warner v. Kudler

m an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated August 5, 1983, which granted plaintiff's…

Vernon v. Nassau County Medical Center

The instant action was still pending before Special Term when it entertained the plaintiff's timely motion…