Michael B. I simply note that Brill is inapposite to the facts of this matter and that both the decision and the statute it construes apply only to a party whose motion has the effect of staying and delaying trial. Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with In Frelinghuysen's words, he and Girardi decided that surgery "would not help." He is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery and graduated from VANDERBILT UNIV SCH. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 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. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. fact, barring summary resolution. However, it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that a court should avoid any interpretation that leads to absurd and unintended consequences (see Matter of Friedman-Kien v City of New York, 92 AD2d 827, 828-829 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 923 [1984], citing Matter of Chatlos v McGoldrick, 302 NY 380, 387-388 [1951]; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, 92, 145, 147). Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. PDF Expert Opinion provided by Dr. Michael Cross 211 likes. 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. Specialties. 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. 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). ], 5 NY3d 514 [2005], citing Brill [dismissal after ongoing failure to comply with discovery orders]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. HSS argued to the motion court, as it does to this Court, that its motion should be considered on the merits because it merely presents the same arguments made by HJD. It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is "good cause shown" for the delay. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. by Peter Gordon. Dr. Michael B. 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]). Altschuler, in turn, relied on a pre-Brill decision, James v Jamie Towers Hous. He accepts multiple insurance plans, including Medicare. Maysville Radiology Group 991 Medical Park Dr Maysville, KY 41056. However, bending the rule results in the practical elimination of the "good cause shown" aspect of CPLR 3212(a), and the clear intent of Brill. Jewish-Hillside Med. Find Providers by Condition. Dr. Cross completed his internship at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in 2007 and his residency at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York in 2012 where he was awarded the Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award and the Jean McDaniel Award, which is given to the Chief Resident who best demonstrates leadership, professionalism and ethics in the care of patients. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. In Brill, the City of New York moved for summary judgment on the basis that it never had notice of the defect and therefore could not be liable for the plaintiff's personal injuries by law. Bonanno v. Mayman, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33343 | Casetext Search + Citator Hospital for Special Surgery and the HSS Alumni Association gratefully thank the Autumn Beneit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for several medical education initiatives, including publication of . DEPUTY CLERK
Find All Providers . Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit in May 2007, claiming medical malpractice and failure to secure informed consent. Mr. Michael Brian Cross M.d. Npi 1235397043 Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. Tel: (212) 606-1000. 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. He received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and has been in practice between 11-20 years.. Find Hospital for Special Surgery on the . Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. 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." Dr. Michael A. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion in New York, NY Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. Type a specific doctor's name, body part, procedure or condition, then choose from the options. 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. First of all, under the authority of Brill [2 NY3d 648 (2004)], the cross[]motion was clearly untimely without any explanation, and counsel is simply wrong when he argues that the cross[]motion raises the same issues as the motion timely made by [HJD]. Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. 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]). Likewise, there is no indication that plaintiff was prepared to undergo the procedure prior to October 2004, when he first consulted with Dr. Freylinghuysen. Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Indianapolis, IN | Orthopedic Surgery | Vitals This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon White Plains, NY MedicineNet He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. 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. Michael B. 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." Electrical studies performed on October 26, 2006 revealed no significant change from those done in 2005 although there was evidence of fibrotic changes; [*4]the studies showed the presence of moderate right and mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). 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." "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Here, at the time HSS submitted its untimely motion for summary judgment, the proceedings were already stayed by the concededly timely summary judgment motion brought by HJD. At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. at 653). Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. 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). HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. Dr. Cross is board-certified with several association memberships, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society, and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Dr. Michael Cross, MD works in New York, NY as an Orthopedic Surgery Specialist and has 16 years experience. About eight years later, in March 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS complaining of lower back pain and severe left leg pain; he was treated with a course of steroid injections. Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. 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. ), 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. 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 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. 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. Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. In opposition, Murphy's opinions were "somewhat conclusory." Michael CROSS | Assistant Attending Orthopaedic Surgeon | Hospital for We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Auth. 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 The course adopted by plaintiff of locating a medical team possessing the requisite skills at a hospital equipped with the appropriate facilities represents a seemingly optimal outcome which, as a matter of policy, should not be compromised by the threat of litigation. Of these, only molybdenum is a metal. Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. . It is true that since Brill was decided, this Court has held, on many occasions, that an untimely but correctly labeled cross motion may be considered at least as to the issues that are the same in both it and the motion, without needing to show good cause (see e.g. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . Co. (294 AD2d 268, 272 [1st Dept 2002], affd 99 NY2d 639 [2003]). Dr. Michael B. Cross's office location Michael B. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. The le-de-France tramways ( French: Tramways d'le-de-France) is a network of modern tram lines in the le-de-France region of France. RX Drugs & Medications Vitamins & Supplements. 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. Get free summaries of new New York Appellate Division, First Department opinions delivered to your inbox! Visit Website. New York, NY, 10021. Plaintiff's expert does not even address the question of whether, taking plaintiff's obviously compromised physical condition into account, it was a departure from good and accepted medical practice to pursue a conservative course of treatment rather than assume the risk of surgical intervention. Appellate Division, First Department
Sinai. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. The clinic notes of June 11, 2004 indicate that his "symptoms have progressed with increased right shoulder atrophy"; a new round of studies was scheduled. . Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery :: 2013 :: New York Appellate Hip, knee surgeons with NYC's best value outcomes at HSS FOX REHABILITATION - 11 Photos & 12 Reviews - 7 Carnegie Plz, Cherry Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY In December 1994, plaintiff had surgery at HSS to address multilevel cervical stenosis with myelopathy and radiculopathy, a condition that existed for a period of time which caused plaintiff continuous weakness of his upper extremities including left shoulder. This was supported by Dr. Hecht's finding that there was no substantial neurological improvement in plaintiff's condition after his surgery at Mt. 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. I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. The problem in the case at bar is that HSS's motion, in addition to being untimely, is not a true cross motion. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. [Habiterra Assocs. Particularly, the majority holds that the summary judgment motion interposed by HSS was untimely and beyond the motion court's power to entertain pursuant to Brill. 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. Mon 7:00 am - 6:00 pm. New York Presbyterian Hospital Internship, Preliminary Year, 2006 . Indeed, in our view, the dissent wrongly interprets the statute by claiming that the "good cause shown" prong is not always a part of the CPLR 3212(a) analysis. In James, the defendant moved for summary judgment and the codefendant served its cross motion late but before the original motion had been decided; James held that the untimely cross motion should have been considered as the original motion was still pending and both could have been decided together.