Court Opinion

ID: 9555395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 20:07:04.040843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:55.648994
License: Public Domain

Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp. (2023 NY Slip Op 04275)

Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp.

2023 NY Slip Op 04275

Decided on August 11, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on August 11, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.

481 CA 22-01508

[*1]EMMETT HARRIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
vROME MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, THOMAS K. WEIDMAN, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN AGENT, OFFICER, AND/OR EMPLOYEE OF UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND/OR UPSTATE EMERGENCY MEDICINE, INC., AND UPSTATE EMERGENCY MEDICINE, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 3.) 

SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (CORY J. SCHOONMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN C. CHERUNDOLO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Scott J. DelConte, J.), entered September 21, 2022. The order denied the motion of defendants Upstate Emergency Medicine, Inc. and Thomas K. Weidman, M.D. for an order compelling plaintiff to accept service of their bill of particulars and directing that nonparty providers be included on the verdict sheet. 
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it denied that part of the motion seeking an order compelling plaintiff to accept the bill of particulars is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp. ([appeal No. 1]
— AD3d — [Aug. 11, 2023] [4th Dept 2023]).
Entered: August 11, 2023
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court