Barnaba-Hohm v. St. Joseph's Hosp. Health Ctr.

Kuehner Law Firm, PLLC, Syracuse (Brian D. Roy of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (Ashley D. Hayes of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center and Deborah Fiordalice, P.C.

Phelan, Phelan & Danek, LLP, Albany (Joseph B. Slater of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents Emergency Care Services of New York, P.C. and Amber Wilson, ANP–C.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice and wrongful death action seeking damages arising from the death of her husband (decedent), who died from ethylene glycol poisoning in what was determined to be a suicide. In appeal No. 1, of defendant Ahmad Bilal, M.D., for leave to amend his answer to assert a statute of limitations defense and for partial summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death cause of action against him based on that defense. We affirm in both appeals.

In appeal Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiff advances several contentions to the effect that defendants' motions should have been denied on procedural grounds. We reject those contentions. Although CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, the Wilson defendants complied with that requirement by submitting the complaint and their answer, and they were not required to submit the answers of the other defendants (see Bacon v. Arden, 244 A.D.2d 940, 941, 665 N.Y.S.2d 154 ).

Bilal's failure to comply with CPLR 3212(b) in his initial submission was excusable because he thereafter submitted a copy of his answer to the court (see Dale v. Gentry, 66 A.D.3d 1469, 1469, 885 N.Y.S.2d 832 ; see also CPLR 2001 ; Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC v. Morsello, 97 A.D.3d 611, 612, 948 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). In addition, the court properly granted Bilal's motion for leave to amend his answer in the absence of surprise or prejudice to plaintiff arising from his delay in raising a statute of limitations defense (see CPLR 3025[b] ; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935, 408 N.Y.S.2d 314, 380 N.E.2d 146 ; Town of Webster v. Village of Webster, 280 A.D.2d 931, 932–933, 720 N.Y.S.2d 664 ). The record establishes that plaintiff was aware at all relevant times that her wrongful death cause of action was potentially time-barred. Plaintiff's remaining contentions against Bilal were raised for the first time in her reply brief and are therefore not properly before us (see Turner v. Canale, 15 A.D.3d 960, 961, 790 N.Y.S.2d 347, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 799 N.Y.S.2d 773, 832 N.E.2d 1189 ).

A court has discretion to overlook late or defective service of a motion where the nonmoving party is not prejudiced (see Bucklaew v. Walters, 75 A.D.3d 1140, 1141, 905 N.Y.S.2d 813 ; Clark v. State of New York [Appeal No. 2], 302 A.D.2d 942, 944, 754 N.Y.S.2d 814 ), and we conclude that the hospital defendants' alleged failure to serve their initial moving papers on plaintiff's attorney “was a mere irregularity that did not result in substantial prejudice” to plaintiff given that she was able to address the substance of the statute of limitations issue in her opposition papers (Jones v. LeFrance Leasing L.P., 81 A.D.3d 900, 903, 917 N.Y.S.2d 261 ; see Ciafone v. Queens Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Residential Healthcare, 126 A.D.3d 662, 663, 5 N.Y.S.3d 462 ; Clark, 302 A.D.2d at 944, 754 N.Y.S.2d 814 ; see generally CPLR 2103[b][2] ).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention with respect to the merits fashion (see Baez v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 571, 576–577, 592 N.Y.S.2d 640, 607 N.E.2d 787 ; Public Adm'r of Kings County v. Hossain Constr. Corp., 27 A.D.3d 714, 716, 815 N.Y.S.2d 621 ; Merced v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 225 A.D.2d 532, 532, 639 N.Y.S.2d 81, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 805, 646 N.Y.S.2d 985, 670 N.E.2d 226 ; cf. Hernandez v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 687, 693–694, 578 N.Y.S.2d 510, 585 N.E.2d 822 ; Matter of Boles v. Sheehan Mem. Hosp., 265 A.D.2d 910, 911–912, 695 N.Y.S.2d 818 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.