"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. Burns v Gonzalez, 307 AD2d 863, 864-865 [1st Dept 2003]; Garrison v City of New York, 300 AD2d 14, 15 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. 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]). According to the affidavit, Murphy reviewed the medical records and opined that surgery for plaintiff was "indicated as early as June 2003 when the diagnosis of cervical spondylitic myelopathy was made," and from that time until December 2005 when surgery was performed, plaintiff's neurological condition deteriorated. However, the solution, the Court of Appeals explains, is not for the courts to overlook or bend CPLR 3212(a) to fit the particular circumstances, but for "practitioners [to] move for summary judgment within the prescribed time period or offer a legitimate reason for the delay" (id.). Appellate Division, First Department
New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. HSS appealed from the denial of its "cross motion" and plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of HJD's motion. Footnote 3: In Cadichon v Facelle (18 NY3d 230 [2011]), the Court reversed a "ministerial" dismissal based on the failure to timely file the note of issue because the trial court did not provide notice to the parties or issue a formal order; the decision notes that the record showed that neither set of parties acted "with expediency in moving the case forward," and that deadlines must not be disregarded (id. 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 The motion court granted HJD's motion and denied the motion of HSS. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. 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). PDF Alumni Relections Across the Years The majority concludes that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any injury sustained as a result of the delay in surgery and upholds the dismissal of the complaint as against HJD on this ground a result in which I wholly concur. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. According to Girardi, after viewing the films, in his opinion the severity of plaintiff's spinal disease and the low prospect of improvement did not warrant the risks of surgery. 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).