General

Herman Stanski et al., Appellants, v. William M. Ezersky et al., Respondents

250 A.D.2d 422673 N.Y.S.2d 90·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1998·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Herman Stanski et al., Appellants, v William M. Ezersky et al., Respondents. [673 NYS2d 90] [MAJORITY] —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 4, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The motion was properly denied. The medical articles on which plaintiff relies to show that a causal relationship between the anesthesia he was administered and the abdominal myoclonus he suffers from is generally accepted in the scientific community either were not in existence at the time the action was pending, or, if they were in existence, could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence and introduced at the trial (see, 10 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5015.07; Prote Contr. Co. v Board of Educ., 230 AD2d 32, 39). Defendant Mondora’s application to impose sanctions on plaintiffs attorneys for frivolous conduct is denied. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.