![]() In motion sequence number three, defendants, Ingolf Holm-Andersen, M.D., and Ingolf Holm-Andersen, M.D., P.C. Schinder, and all physician assistants and staff with the North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove Group, and any of its agents, servants and/or employees, and precluding plaintiff from introducing any evidence at trial to support a claim or vicarious liability on the part of the hospital for these or any other individual for whom it is claimed that the hospital is vicariously liable, as well as to separately delineate those acts and/or omissions allegedly attributable to each respective individual in compliance with the Preliminary Conference Order of February 9, 2009, and Compliance Conference Order of Septem(6) extending the time to file motion(s) for summary judgment until ninety (90) days after plaintiffs serve a proper Bill of Particulars is determined as hereinafter provided. ![]() ![]() ![]() In motion sequence number two, defendant Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove ("Glen Cove") moves for an order: (1) dismissing plaintiffs' complaint or, in the alternative (2) vacating the plaintiffs' Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness and striking this action from the trial calendar (3) granting the defendants permission to complete pretrial proceedings, including directing that plaintiffs provide responses to all outstanding demands and discovery notices (4) striking improper language from the Amended/Supplemental Verified Bill of Particulars dated March 7, 2011, served on Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove (5) striking all language in the Amended/Supplemental Verified Bill of Particulars dated March 7, 2011, which alleges that Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove has vicarious liability for any individuals, including Dr. and NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AT GLEN COVE, Defendants. Ingolf Holm-Andersen, M.D., INGOLF HOLM-ANDERSEN, M.D, P.C., VINCENT PESIRI, M.D. Crispino and CHRISTINE CRISPINO, Plaintiffs, This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.Ĭharles P. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. If the deposition is to be videotaped, the administrative law judge's order will so state.Crispino v Holm-Andersen 2011 NY Slip Op 51775(U) Decided on SeptemSupreme Court, Nassau County Woodard, J. If the administrative law judge approves the taking of a deposition, he will issue an order which will include in its terms the name of the person to be examined, the time and place of the deposition, and the officer before whom it is to be taken. Unless the administrative law judge shall determine otherwise for good cause shown, an application to take a deposition will not be regarded as sufficient ground for granting an adjournment from a date of hearing theretofore set. A hearing on the application will be held only if directed by the administrative law judge. Such other parties or persons shall file their objections or other response, with a certificate of service thereof on the other parties and such other persons, within 15 days after such service of the application. The applicant shall serve a copy of the application on each of the other parties to the case, as well as on such other persons who are to be examined pursuant to the application, and shall file with the application a certificate showing such service. ![]() The application shall be made to the administrative law judge assigned to the case or if no administrative law judge has yet been assigned to the supervising administrative law judge. The application may be filed with the Division of Tax Appeals at any time after the petition is filed. (2) Filing and disposition of application. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |