You are here: / Negligence
, ,

EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED.

The Third Department determined the policy exclusion for injury stemming from an assault controlled and defendant insurer was not required to defend the action by defendant bar patron, Christian, who alleged-plaintiff bar’s employee injured him when ejecting him from the bar. The language of the exclusion took precedence over the general liability provisions. Any negligence causes of action were not covered because the negligence claims stemmed from the assault:

The exclusion, which states that it “is subject to the terms contained in the General Liability Coverage,” provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, . . . this policy excludes any and all claims arising out of any assault, battery, fight, altercation, misconduct or other similar incident,” including claims of negligent hiring and supervision. * * *

Here … Supreme Court properly found that the terms of the exclusion controlled over those in the general liability coverage, as “language such as a ‘notwithstanding’ provision ‘controls over any contrary language’ in a contract” … .

Christian asserts that the assault and battery exclusion does not apply because the underlying action alleges acts of negligence. We disagree. “[I]f no cause of action would exist but for the assault, the claim is based on assault and the exclusion applies” and the fact that an insured might be liable under a theory of negligence does not change this … . Graytwig Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03229, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/ASSAULT (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/EXCLUSIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

,

HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE FOR ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED.

The Second Department determined defendant hospital (Beth Israel) could not be liable for the acts of a surgeon (Krikhely) who: (1) was not an employee; (2) was not subject to the emergency room exception; (3) did not order the hospital staff to perform an act which was contraindicated; and (4) was not acting under the ostensible or apparent authority of the hospital:

​

… [T]he Beth Israel defendants established, prima facie, that Krikhely was a private attending physician who was not an employee of the hospital and who was referred to [plaintiff] by his private physician … . Furthermore, the Beth Israel defendants made a prima facie showing that the emergency room exception was inapplicable by demonstrating that Spiegel was referred to Krikhely’s care by his private physician … .. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the prima facie showing that Krikhely was not an employee of the hospital and that the emergency room exception did not apply … . Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital’s staff committed independent acts of malpractice and as to whether any order given by Krikhely was so contraindicated that it should not have been followed by the hospital’s staff … .  Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital may be held liable under a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . Spiegel v Beth Israel Med. Center-Kings Highway Div., 2017 NY Slip Op 03211, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

​

NEGLIGENCE (HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE OF ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE OF ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED)/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL NOT LIABLE OF ACTS OF SURGEON WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA OUTLINED)

DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT.

The Second Department determined the defendant concert/dance hall’s (Knitting Factory’s) motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged he was pushed into a mosh pit where someone hit him in the eye. The defendant argued plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury and no level of supervision could have prevented the injury:

​

A property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, which includes a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “applies when a consenting participant in a qualified activity is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks'” … . A person who chooses to engage in such an activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the [activity] generally and flow from such participation”… . The duty owed in these situations is “a duty to exercise care to make the conditions as safe as they appear to be” … . The doctrine has generally been restricted “to particular athletic and recreative activities in recognition that such pursuits have enormous social value’ even while they may involve significantly heightened risks'” … , and are, therefore, “worthy of insulation from a breach of duty claim” … .

Here, even assuming, without deciding, that attending a metal music concert where “moshing” takes place is a qualified activity to which the doctrine may properly be applied … , under the facts presented here, the Knitting Factory failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it met its duty to exercise care to make the conditions at the subject venue as safe as they appeared to be … , and did not unreasonably increase the usual risks inherent in the activity of concert going… . The Knitting Factory also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury … , whether the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were foreseeable, and whether it provided adequate security measures and, if not, whether its failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries … . Nevo v Knitting Factory Brooklyn, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03186, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT)/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT)/MOSH PITS (CONCERT HALLS, NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT)

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell down stairs on defendants’ property while holding the infant plaintiff. Plaintiffs alleged the stairs should have had a hand rail (an alleged code violation) and were poorly illuminated. The defendants’ papers did not negate those theories and did not demonstrate out-of-possession-landlord status:

​

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the subject staircase did not have to be equipped with a handrail pursuant to the code provisions alleged in the plaintiffs’ pleadings and that the absence of the handrail and the alleged inadequate lighting condition did not proximately cause the plaintiffs to fall … . The defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that they were out-of-possession landlords who had no notice of the alleged hazardous conditions of the subject staircase … .

Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden as the movants, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers … . Lopez-Serrano v Ochoa, 2017 NY Slip Op 03167, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFFS FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEGATE PLAINTIFFS’ THEORIES, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFFS FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFFS FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STAIRS (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE (1) THE STAIRS DOWN WHICH PLAINTIFFS FELL WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A HANDRAIL (2) THE STAIRS WERE ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED (3) OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD STATUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED) 

,

NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of claim which named the correct party (New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA]) and address but mistakenly indicated the “Comptroller” of the NYCHA on the mailed envelope, was properly served. The envelope was misdirected to the Comptroller of the City of New York, despite the fact that the comptroller is at an entirely different address than that on the envelope:

As pertinent to this appeal, General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(a) provides that the notice of claim should be mailed “to the person designated by law as one to whom a summons in an action . . . may be delivered.” Although the statute requires that the notice be mailed to the designated “person,” this generally refers to the public authority or government entity itself rather than a particular person employed thereby … . Here, there is no real dispute that simply writing “NYCHA” on the envelope would have satisfied the requirements of the statute.

Further, while NYCHA contends that there is no such person or entity as the “Comptroller of the NYCHA,” a “comptroller” is simply an officer of a municipal corporation, like NYCHA, “who is charged with duties [usually] relating to fiscal affairs, including auditing and examining accounts and reporting the financial status periodically” (Black’s Law Dictionary 347 [10th ed 2014]). In any event, the minor misnomer on the envelope need not be fatal to the action, especially where, as here, the plaintiff’s attorney properly mailed the same notice of claim form to both the Comptroller and NYCHA in order to assert a claim against both the City of New York and NYCHA, and the notice of claim itself named NYCHA.

Under these circumstances, we find that the envelope was properly addressed within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(b) and the plaintiff properly served the notice of claim upon NYCHA within the requisite 90-day statutory period … . Carroll v City of New York. 2017 NY Slip Op 03148, 2nd Dept 4-26-2017

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED)

, , ,

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT.

The Second Department determined the owner of a parking lot (Berkshire) could assert cross claims against the lessee of the parking lot (Livingston), even though the lessee did not know the lease was entered into by an undisclosed agent of the owner. Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. The owner cross-claimed for indemnification by the lessee:

Berkshire may enforce provisions of Livingston’s lease for the parking lot. An undisclosed principal may sue on a contract made in the name of its agent unless there is a showing of fraud … . Here, Livingston’s submissions confirmed that Berkshire owned the property that Livingston was renting, and that the lease was valid. Livingston does not assert that it would not have entered into the lease had it known then that Berkshire was, in fact, the owner. Although Livingston was not aware that Berkshire had authorized an agent to enter into the lease on its behalf, Livingston cannot escape liability on the contract by claiming ignorance of the undisclosed principal’s existence … . Simmons v Berkshire Equity, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03208, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CONTRACT LAW (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/LANDLORD-TENANT (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST LESSEE BASED ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)/AGENCY (UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL CAN SUE ON A LEASE ENTERED INTO BY ITS AGENT)

,

MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his bill of particulars to reflect a different date for the injury allegedly caused by defendant’s employees during a carpet delivery should not have been granted. The motion was made on the eve of trial more than four years after the action was commenced and after plaintiff had repeatedly asserted the date during discovery. It turned out that no delivery was made by defendant on the date alleged in the pleadings:

​

“Generally, [i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'”… . Where, however, the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious… . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … .

Here, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill of particulars more than four years after the action was commenced, and almost a year after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars, as the defendant demonstrated that it would suffer significant prejudice as a result of the unexplained delay … . Tabak v Shaw Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03213, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE  (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO AMEND  (NEGLIGENCE, MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.

​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew in this rear-end collision case should not have been deemed a motion to reargue and denied. Plaintiff presented new evidence which was not available at the time the original motion was heard. The new evidence was sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion:

​

The new evidence included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which had not been submitted to the court on the prior motion, as her deposition had not been completed until after the prior motion had been decided. Therefore, the motion was correctly denominated by the defendant as one for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, this new evidence raised triable issues of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to change the court’s prior determination, and should have resulted in the court, upon renewal, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Donovan v Rizzo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/REARGUE, MOTION TO  (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)

INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The First Department determined defendant bus company’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged she slipped on an oily substance on the step of a bus. Plaintiff’s expert argued the handrails were inadequate, but the statutes and regulations cited related to buildings, not buses. Although the internal rules of defendant bus company required the driver to assist passengers off the bus, that rule exceeded the ordinary care standard and could not be the basis for liability. Ziman-Scheuer v Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03124, 1st Dept 4-25-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (BUSES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/BUSES (SLIP AND FALL, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/STANDARD OF CARE (INTERNAL RULES, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/INTERNAL RULES (NEGLIGENCE, STANDARD OF CARE, INTERNAL RULE THAT BUS DRIVER MUST ASSIST PASSENGERS OFF THE BUS EXCEEDED THE STANDARD OF ORDINARY CARE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Befeler) was a general surgeon and did not assert any knowledge of gastroenterology. His affidavit was not sufficient to raise a question of fact in the face of plaintiff’s gastroenterology experts:

​

Here, there is no indication that Dr. Befeler possessed the requisite background and knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion concerning the practice of gastroenterology … . While a gastroenterologist may well be qualified to render an opinion on a surgical procedure involving the gastrointestinal system, it cannot be said that a general surgeon is qualified to opine on any specialty simply because the specialist may eventually refer the patient for surgery. Indeed, Dr. Befeler averred only that his conclusion that both doctors “were negligent in failing to follow standard and accepted medical procedures” was based upon his “review of the above records, [his] education, years of training, and [his] forty year experience in the field of General Surgery.” Nowhere did the doctor set forth any experience in gastroenterology or detail the standard of care for that specialty. Bartolacci-Meir v Sassoon, 2017 NY Slip Op 03040, 1st Dept 4-20-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy