The court noted that Dr. Girardi at HSS "explained clearly that he believed that the cord was so damaged that the surgery would not have improved anything" and Dr. Hecht, who performed the surgery, acknowledged that plaintiff did not have any objective improvement. hilton houston address. "[FN4] There are sufficient discrepancies in the record and in the experts' opinions that raise questions of fact regarding HSS's course of treatment beginning in 2004, if not earlier. Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. Sinai, and the only change in his condition was numbness in his right arm and hand, likely due to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion 541 East 71st Street New York, NY 10021 Physicians at this location Specialties Family Medicine Orthopedic Spine Surgery Orthopedic Surgery. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. The argument that HSS's motion should be considered on the merits because it "sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion," ignores the distinction in the CPLR between motions and cross motions and perpetuates an increasingly played end run around the Court of Appeals' bright line rule in Brill. Thus, the primary objective of Brill to discourage dilatory conduct is not implicated (see Fofana v 41 W. 34th St., LLC, 71 AD3d 445, 448 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]). While defendants have not raised the question of whether the complaint is actionable, the issue should nevertheless be decided preliminarily. charmeuse flutter sleeve a line bridesmaid dress September 10, 2022 September 10, 2022; best fpv camera and transmitter . The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. On April 11, 2003, an MRI revealed a narrowing of the spinal canal and the neural foramen with disc protrusions. James, in turn, relied on Rosa v R.H. Macy Co. (272 AD2d 87 [1st Dept 2000]), where Macy moved for summary judgment and two other defendants untimely cross-moved against it for indemnity; the motion and another timely cross motion were still pending, and we held that the untimely cross motions should have been considered. Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. New York Presbyterian Hospital Internship, Preliminary Year, 2006 . Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". Find a Doctor: By Name, Specialty, Location & Insurance Find a Doctor At HSS, the world's best musculoskeletal specialists work together to provide the best care for you. After surgery, Dr. Hecht observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving." Michael M. Alexiades, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Uniondale Call for an appointment 212.774.7557 Michael P. Ast, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Paramus Call for an appointment 201.599.8056 Jason L. Blevins, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Westchester Call for an appointment 212.606.1248 The Mt. Financial Disclosures. Likewise, the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) is concerned with the disruption to court calendars by a motion interposed on the eve of trial (Sponsor's Mem, L. 1996, ch 492 reprinted in 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 2432-2433). Tue 7:00 am . However, the expert failed to support his assertion with an analysis of the multiple diagnostic tests and physical examinations conducted over the years. FEINMAN, J. Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. The Best of the Best in Orthopedic Surgery. Cross is a radiation oncologist. "Thus, the rationale for the court's denial was articulated as being that the "cross motion" was untimely. As to the procedural issue raised, the majority has devised a solution to a problem recognized neither by the Legislature nor the Court of Appeals. 211 likes. Thereafter, the motion court issued an order which provided that "[t]he time for the various defendants to move for summary judgment is extended through November 14, 2011." This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. [FN3]
Furthermore, both the memorandum and Brill identify an adversarial party's lack of adequate time to prepare a response to the motion as the problem to be addressed. I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon - Home | Facebook In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. Peltz & Walker, New York (Bhalinder L. Rikhye of counsel), for appellants-respondents. DEPUTY CLERK
Time Program Topic Faculty; Orthopaedic Summit. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Auto. Our decision is not one on the merits of plaintiff's claim, and it is therefore premature to bemoan that we have opened a Pandora's box for surgeons. HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. He further opined that there was no identifiable injury sustained in the four-month period between plaintiff's first visit at HJD and when he first went to Mt. According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. Cross, MD. The doctor also noted that plaintiff's "only option" might be a future shoulder arthrodesis "to allow him to have a more functional lifestyle." at 653). Visit Website. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. MedicineNet. Request an Appointment 317.275.6191 (Fax: 317.884.5360) Meet Dr. Michael Cross Dr. Cross earned his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. By making a cross motion, the party saves an extra day in court, and quite possibly the time and trouble of amassing fresh proof, if it happens that all or part of the evidentiary foundation on which the cross motion is based has already been produced for consideration (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1, 2215:2). Likewise, there is no indication that plaintiff was prepared to undergo the procedure prior to October 2004, when he first consulted with Dr. Freylinghuysen. 212.606.1823 212.734.3833 (fax) www.hss.edu alumni@hss.edu. Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. . At his next visit on November 12, 2004, a different doctor indicated in the clinic notes that Frelinghuysen and Girardi had recommended "what sounds like a two-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion," and that plaintiff would follow up in one week "to discuss surgery" [*3]with Frelinghuysen [FN1]. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a orthopedic surgery specialist in New York, NY.
The dissent expresses concern about an extra burden to the courts and litigants if we strictly enforce Brill "without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case." Lapin relied on Altschuler v Gramatan Mgt., Inc. (27 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2006]), which held it proper to consider the untimely "cross motion," in particular because it was "largely based" on the same arguments raised in the timely motion for summary judgment, and the same findings would apply for both it and the timely motion. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals refused to address the motion on its merits, pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). A bitter divorce between a top New York City spine surgeon and his beauty-queen wife was quickly settled Monday after he filed court papers making tawdry accusations that she was moonlighting as. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Decided on December 24, 2013
According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. He further opined that had the surgery been performed in 2003, plaintiff's "final outcome would have been substantially improved and he would not have sustained such a severe degree of weakness and loss of function of his right upper extremity." This is an aberrant medical malpractice action brought against two hospitals for declining to provide additional surgical treatment to plaintiff because, in their estimation, further surgical intervention presented an unjustifiable risk of quadriplegia or death and offered little to no prospect of relieving his symptomatology. Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. All rights reserved. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, New York Appellate Division, First Department, New York Appellate Division, First Department Decisions. ", As to the delay causing any injury, the doctor stated that there was no identifiable injury caused by any alleged delay during the four month period between when plaintiff was first seen at HJD and when he first went to Mt. Specialties: We provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy primarily in an in-home setting for the older adult community, and with recent addition of services at our skilled nursing facilities, outpatient and pediatric settings. He met with another HSS doctor on October 22, 2004, who wrote that the plan was to have plaintiff return in November to see Frelinghuysen "for booking of his anterior disc fusion surgery." In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. The dissent's approach of judging a motion's merits without consideration of why it was untimely, can only lead to uncertainty and additional litigation as motions clearly barred by Brill become arguably permissible because one of the litigants perceives the motion to have merit and perceives no prejudice to the other side. Although raised in the context of a purported "cross motion," resolution of this appeal requires us to once again revisit the issue of untimely summary judgment motions. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." If it was indeed the Legislature's intent to preclude dilatory conduct, not to deprive a court of the ability to resolve an entire case summarily, then it falls within the observation of the United States Supreme Court in Holy Trinity Church v United States (143 US 457, 472 [1892]) that "however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, [*15]although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.". ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent, and otherwise denied the motion, and from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases. A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. The motion court also correctly denied summary judgment to HSS because its motion was untimely made without any explanation for its untimeliness, let alone good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]). To the extent that good cause is even material under these circumstances, it is the sheer impossibility of preparing a dispositive motion during the remaining time established by the court for its submission. ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent, and otherwise denied the motion, should be affirmed, without costs; the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases, should be affirmed, without costs. The value of enforcing the terms of the statute as written is that attorneys will make sure their motions are timely filed or that there is a good reason for the lateness. Given the budgetary constraints presently confronted by the court system, this is hardly a fitting time to require trial of a matter devoid of apparent merit and otherwise amenable to disposition on motion, and the "genuine need" to be accommodated is that of the court to proceed expeditiously (id.). Sinai where plaintiff later underwent a two stage revision cervical laminectomy with fusion. On March 24, 2016, Dr. Machler reported the results of a weeklong skin patch test, in which plaintiff was exposed to 121 allergens against the skin of his back. Hip, knee surgeons with NYC's best value outcomes at HSS Newsroom Contacts Tracy Hickenbottom Assistant Vice President, Public Relations & Social Media mediarelations@hss.edu (212) 606-1197 Noelle Carnevale Associate Director, Public Relations mediarelations@hss.edu (212) 606-1197 Rachael Rennich Senior Manager, Public Relations Significantly, Brill deals with the straightforward situation in which an initial summary judgment motion is filed well after a matter has been certified as ready for trial "in violation of legislative mandate" (id. In other words, Brill calls on the courts to lead by enforcing the words of the statute, rather than let attorney practice slowly eat away at the integrity of our judicial system. I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding and would dismiss plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice against defendants Hospital for Special Surgery and its physicians (collectively, HSS). Thus, his opinion is an ambiguous statement of causation, amounting to bare conjecture, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728-729 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408, 410-411 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). In that regard, the majority's disposition is antithetical, directing a party to try a case under circumstances to which Brill is inapposite because trial has been delayed not by an eleventh-hour summary judgment motion, but by one that is altogether timely. [*9]. Sinai. This is also reflected in their individual motion papers. He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. Both HSS and HJD established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff did not sustain any injury resulting from the respective institutions' independent decisions to recommend against further surgery. Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor (GTF Mktg., Inc. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]). All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P.TOM, J.P. (dissenting in part). Palomo v 175th St. Realty Corp., 101 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2012]; Conklin v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 49 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]; Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281-282 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 862 [2007]; Osario v BRF Constr. The undesirable practice sought to be prevented by revision of CPLR 3212(a) is the waste of resources expended in preparation for trial as the result of a belated summary judgment motion staying the proceedings. Dr. Cross joined HSS as a clinician-scientist and currently has over 55 publications and has received numerous research awards at local, regional, and national levels, including the 2013 Frank Stinchfield Award from the Hip Society and the 2013 OREF/ORS Travel Award in Translational Research from the Orthopaedic Research Society. Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring a trial (Kosson v Algaze, 84 NY2d 1019 [1995]). As to HSS, the court noted that the motion was clearly untimely, without explanation. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Cross, MD . The Hospital for Special Surgery a pre-eminent facility for musculoskeletal health and orthopedics and a New . The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. Plaintiff testified that on his third visit with Frelinghuysen in December 2004, the doctor told him that they could not do the surgery, but did not give him "a reason that made any sense." Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. Alumni News. Strict and rigid application of Brill is even less understandable given the similarity of the grounds advanced by the respective hospitals in support of their summary judgment motions and the ground upon which disposition rests. Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well" (16 NY3d at 81). Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). In opposition plaintiff's expert did not offer an opinion as to what specific injury plaintiff endured as a result of HJD's decision not to perform surgery and made only broad conjectures which were insufficient to defeat HJD's motion (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). Logically, if plaintiff did not sustain injury as a result of HJD's February 2005 decision, it follows that he did not sustain injury as a result of the similar December 2004 determination, approximately 2 months earlier, by HSS physicians to forego surgery, especially in light of plaintiff's long history of [*13]cervical disc disease. Dr. Michael B. While the Brill rule may have caused some practitioners and courts to wince at its bright line, by the time the motions at issue in this case were made, the Court of Appeals had already reiterated on more than one occasion, and in varying contexts, that it meant what it said (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010], citing Brill [dismissal after repeated failures to serve bill of particulars and noncompliance with enforcement order]; Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C. Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with In opposition, Murphy's opinions were "somewhat conclusory." HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. Here, HJD's submission of its moving papers a mere three days before the final date set by the trial court contravenes the spirit of Brill by depriving HSS of an adequate opportunity to timely file its own application for similar relief because, at such point in time, HSS is presumed to have been devoting its resources to preparation for trial (Brill, 2 NY2d at 651). Brill emphasizes that summary judgment is advantageous to the parties by "avoiding needless litigation cost and delay" and constitutes "a great benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York State trial courts" since it "may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the "recurring scenario" of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect "ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice" (2 NY3d at 650). Drugs & Supplements. at 236, citing Andrea, Miceli, Brill, and Kihl). In addition, the motion court correctly dismissed the second cause of action alleging lack of informed consent as plaintiff's papers did not address this claim. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. Plaintiff was referred for pain management and to HJD's neurology and hand clinics, with the notation that "no further surgery for the cervical spine [was] indicated.". Rather, it will be for a trial court and a jury to hear plaintiff's case, and should plaintiff prevail, then, assuming a timely appeal is taken and perfected, and only then, will we have occasion to consider the merits of the claim against HSS. Diet & Weight Management Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). Co., 95 AD3d 568, 560 [1st Dept 2012] [court's clerical error, [*10]explained through an affidavit of the paralegal, provided good cause for granting the motion seeking renewal of the motion for summary judgment]). Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. As a point of reference, the statutory 120-day maximum expired on December 22, 2011. All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P.
World-Renowned Experts Focused on You As leaders in the field, the doctors at HSS Florida have years of experience in caring for people with all types of orthopedic conditions, from persistent knee pain to shoulder injuries. It was also Dr. Girardi's opinion that, given plaintiff's extensive spinal disease and the prospect of low improvement, the risk of surgery including quadriplegia or even death, was clearly not warranted. (108 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2013])
However, the Court of Appeals intended no such exception, and to the extent this Court has created one, it did so, whether knowingly or unwittingly, by relying on precedents which predate Brill and which, if followed, will continue to perpetuate a culture of delay. As the Court of Appeals has admonished, " No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided, and no judge can write freely if every sentence is to be taken as a rule of law separate from its association'" (Matter of Staber v Fidler, 65 NY2d 529, 535 [1985], quoting Dougherty v Equitable Life Assur. He currently practices at Hospital for Special Surgery and is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery. ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall He submitted the affidavit of his medical expert, Michael J. Murphy, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Connecticut. McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. Finally, we note the dissent's concern that allowing this litigation to proceed based on plaintiff's particular theory of negligence could result in placing surgeons in an impossible situation either of performing a procedure that is deemed ill-advised and being subject to any liability for aggravation of a condition, or declining and being subject to liability for refusing to [*11]assume the risk that the surgery entails. A cross motion is "merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion" (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1; see CPLR 2215). The same expertise that has earned HSS the #1 ranking for orthopedics in the world by Newsweek and the #1 ranking in the U.S. 13 years in a row according to U.S. News & World Report* is available locally through a unique collaboration with the caring experts at Stamford Health. Mon 7:00 am - 6:00 pm. We are concerned that the respect for court orders and statutory mandates and the authoritative voice of the Court of Appeals are undermined each time an untimely motion is considered simply by labeling it a "cross motion" notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable explanation for its untimeliness. Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical Footnote 2: Supreme Court's extension of the time to file dispositive motions had given the parties a total of 82 days after the filing of the note of issue on August 24, 2011. The court then went on to comment in dicta that if its merits were examined, summary dismissal should be denied as there are substantial questions of
[Habiterra Assocs. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve as a question of fact whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff" (citing Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]). Dr. Michael Brian Cross has 13 locations Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46278 (317) 802-2000 ACCEPTING NEW PATIENTS Michael Cross MD 535 E 70th St Fl 7 Ste 710 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2114 Dr. Michael Cross' Practice 523 E 72nd St Fl 7 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2127 ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of On November 11, 2011, HJD moved for summary judgment, making its motion returnable on December 14, 2011. The progress notes from June 25, 2005 indicate, in part, that he had "marked stenosis throughout spine," and "marked atrophy at both shoulder girdles." Cross, MD 523 E 72nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10021 Patient reviews All reviews have been submitted by patients after seeing the provider. We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. The best working with the best. by Peter Gordon. Find Providers by Condition. . After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. Was seen ahead of scheduled appointment time. He was found to have "significant" cervical stenosis and compression of his spinal cord, as well as cord signal change especially at C3-4 and C4-5. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. The motion court properly dismissed the case as against HJD. In Brill the Court of Appeals indicated that late-filed summary judgment motions are "another example of sloppy practice threatening our judicial system" (2 NY3d at 652, emphasis added), and pointed to its earlier decision, Kihl v Pfeffer (94 NY2d 118 [1999]), which affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to respond to a court order within the court-ordered time frame.
Chelsea New Signing Today Done Deal 2023,
Ambyr Childers And Randall Emmett Wedding,
How Old Is Richard Rosenthal Phil Rosenthal's Brother,
State Of Illinois Job Title Search,
Articles D