Court Opinion

ID: 9555391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 20:07:00.786387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:39.143564
License: Public Domain

Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp. (2023 NY Slip Op 04279)

Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp.

2023 NY Slip Op 04279

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.

485 CA 22-01554

[*1]EMMETT HARRIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
vROME MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF NEW YORK, P.C., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 7.) 

PHELAN, PHELAN & DANEK, LLP, ALBANY (TIMOTHY S. BRENNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 
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 26, 2022. The order denied the cross-motion of defendant Emergency Physician Services of New York, P.C. to include nonparty providers on the verdict sheet and denied that defendant's cross-motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of its supplemental bill of particulars. 
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it denied the cross-motion seeking an order compelling plaintiff to accept the supplemental 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