Pearson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Harlem Hosp. Ctr.)

Pearson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Harlem Hosp. Ctr.) 2008 NY Slip Op 04186 [10 NY3d 852] May 6, 2008 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 25, 2008

[*1] Shanice Pearson, an Infant by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Michelle Pearson, Respondent,
v
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Harlem Hospital Center) et al., Appellants.

Decided May 6, 2008

Pearson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Harlem Hosp. Ctr.), 43 AD3d 92, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, appellant.

Leahey & Johnson, P.C., New York City (Peter James Johnson, Jr., of counsel), for Neville Morgan and another, appellants.

Law Offices of Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, P.C., Yonkers (John M. Daly of counsel), for respondent.

{**10 NY3d at 854} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

On these facts, the courts below acted within their discretion in granting plaintiff's [*2]motion for permission to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 538 [2006]). Similarly, the courts below did not abuse their discretion by granting plaintiff's motion to discontinue the action without prejudice to renewal when the full extent of plaintiff's injuries are ascertainable (see CPLR 3217).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.