Magician From The Future Wiki Tang Ming, Glib Main Loop Explained, Sherry Cohen Obituary, Do You Know Wilma Joke, Articles D

Mr. Michael Brian Cross M.d. Npi 1235397043 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]). 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. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. Co., LLC (48 AD3d 337 [1st Dept 2008]), for the principle that there is an exception to Brill for cases where a late motion or cross motion is essentially duplicative of a timely motion. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. As a point of reference, the statutory 120-day maximum expired on December 22, 2011. . The dissent considers our application of Brill in this instance to be "rote," and that our interpretation is antithetical to that decision's policy considerations of preventing eve-of-trial summary judgment motions. Feinman, J. We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least as to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. Co. (294 AD2d 268, 272 [1st Dept 2002], affd 99 NY2d 639 [2003]). In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. An overly expansive application of Brill invites unintended consequences following from the Legislature's 1996 amendment of CPLR 3212(a). Overall rating 4.92 Wait time 3.69 Bedside manner 4.85 Your trust is our top concern, so providers can't pay to alter or remove reviews. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER Moreover, "because of a phenomenon called rebound myelopathy, an operation . This is also reflected in their individual motion papers. fact, barring summary resolution. If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. 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]).