From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lucido v. Vitolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint. Since the plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of merit by a physician in support of their motion, and their "attorney's certificate of merit (see, CPLR 3012-a) * * * [was] insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious claim" (Sober v. Kalina, 208 A.D.2d 1140, 1141) that branch of their motion which sought leave to add a cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice was properly denied. Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to add a cause of action alleging deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349 Gen. Bus., as this statute does not apply to providers of medical services (see, Karlin v. IVF Am., 239 A.D.2d 560). Finally, the original complaint gave the defendant no notice that the plaintiffs would assert a cause of action to recover damages for loss of services. Therefore, that cause of action is time-barred (see, Clausell v. Ullman, 141 A.D.2d 690).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lucido v. Vitolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Lucido v. Vitolo

Case Details

Full title:MARYLOU LUCIDO et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT V. VITOLO, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

Giambrone v. Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr.

We are in accord with the Third Department's view that “[i]n the absence of any prejudice and under these…

Peteroy v. St. Vincent's Medical Center of Richmond

ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. Contrary to the appellants ' contention, the…