Pullman v Silverman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pullman v Silverman 2013 NY Slip Op 34074(U) March 27, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 111065/08 Judge: Joan B. Lobis Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEWYORKCOUNTY: IASPART6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( DAVID PULLMAN, Plaintiff, Index No. 111065/08 Decision, Order and Jud~ent' -againstDAVID A. SILVERMAN, M.D., and K. MOREAU, a nurse employed by defendant David A. Silverman, M.D., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( JOAN B. LOBIS, J.S.C.: Plaintiff David Pullman moves pursuant to Rule 2221 of the Civil Practice Law and: Rules to renew and reargue Motion Sequence Number 3, in which Defendant David A. Silverman,! M.D., successfully moved for summary judgment. Defendant Silverman, who is the only defendant who has appeared in this action, opposes the motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs motion, Motion Sequence Number 4, is denied. On August 27, 2012, this Court granted Defendant Silverman's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff is currently appealing that determination. Plaintiff sued the Defendant in i I 2008 for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. Plaintiff claims that Defe nt i t~~ negligently prescribed him Lipitor and subsequently Azithromycin, and that Defendant's ondft6tf~~~?'l'·· Jf 4 injured him. lq" ~..; ,/ko • ,t;;, f!.:;:>;: '>· / ~'. ,,>...,) )':. /.JI 'J//41f. QIJ l'ly,;, '0/';, I ~ i ':'St,,... Otv ·~, ., .J,_,,, ~' ·~< 'c111'~:rrp0 ; , 'J /.//:; " .....,, '· ...... c-... '?r, I '''h:''J, ?7: (,,~:~, . Plaintiffs motion to reargue is denied as Plaintiff has failed to identify matters of fact! """~' :r/'t' / ',j or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by this Court in determining the prior motion fori summary judgment. See C.P .L.R. Rule 2221 (d)(2). [* 2] I ' Similarly, Plaintiffs motion to renew is unwarranted since Plaintiff has failed to set, forth "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination," nor did Plaintiff "demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination." C.P.L.R. Rule 2221(e)(2). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to reargue is denied; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to renew is denied. Dated: fJ~r. ~f-, 2013 ENTER: -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
