CG&P secured the dismissal of an action alleging nursing home negligence and violation of resident rights under Public Health Law § 2801-d. It was claimed that the nursing home was negligent and violated resident rights in failing to prevent pressure ulcers, failing to prevent falls, and failing to prevent malnutrition and dehydration. It was also claimed that the nursing home was negligent in failing to timely diagnose a gastrointestinal bleed when the resident presented with blood in his stool over the course of 1 week; and that the delay in diagnosis resulted in death secondary to gastrointestinal bleed. CG&P was able to effectively characterize some of the plaintiff’s claims as sounding in medical malpractice which were time-barred by the statute of limitations. CG&P also argued that the nursing home complied with the standard of care and did not violate any resident right with respect to their management of the resident. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the medical malpractice claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the plaintiff’s expert affidavits were insufficient to refute the affidavit submitted by our expert on the claims for negligence and violation of resident rights. The case was handled by CG&P partner Michele R. Levin and Of Counsel Mili Makhijani.
In an action asserting medical malpractice, vicarious liability, and lack of informed consent, plaintiff claimed that he suffered permanent visual complications to both eyes as a result of the alleged negligence of CG&P’s client - the leading LASIK provider in North America. At the conclusion of discovery, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, held that CG&P established that its client was entitled to summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the LASIK facility. The Court found that CG&P indisputably demonstrated that the LASIK facility was not negligent in its care and treatment of the plaintiff. The Court further found that the facility could not be held vicariously liable for the co-defendant physician’s alleged malpractice and that the lack of informed consent claim was inapplicable. The case was handled by CG&P Partner Michele Levin and CG&P Associate Christopher Rogers.
CG&P succeeded in limiting the application of the continuous representation rule in a legal malpractice action, and thus succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of the action. The plaintiff, one of Long Island’s largest fuel suppliers, had retained CG&P’s client (a New York law firm), to defend an action involving a multi-million dollar environmental contamination claim. While the action was pending, the plaintiff replaced CG&P’s client with another firm. Within three years of the signing of the consent to change attorney form, the plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against CG&P’s client, alleging that the firm had committed malpractice in defending the environmental claim. The plaintiff asserted that, under the continuous representation rule, the statute of limitations on the claim against CG&P’s client was tolled until the consent to change attorney form was signed. CG&P moved to dismiss, arguing that its client’s continuous representation of the plaintiff ended several months before the formal consent to change attorney form was signed, when the relationship of confidence and trust between plaintiff and the firm ceased to exist. Justice Peter H. Mayer of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, agreed and dismissed the action. The case was handled by CG&P Partner Matt Flanagan and CG&P Associate Christopher Rogers.