Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. new york, ny zip 10021-099 phone: (212) 774-2114 fax: (646) 797-8298 The provider's authorized official is Michael B Cross . Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. No surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's neurological deficits, "which were significant by the time he presented at HJD, and had already existed for many years." The evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the one moved against (see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. 535 E 70th St . New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. "Before this matter may proceed to trial, it will be necessary to decide, as a matter of law, whether a doctor has a duty to perform a surgical procedure requested by a patient despite, in the professional opinion of the doctor, the high risk and absence of benefit that such surgery entails. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Here, at the time HSS submitted its untimely motion for summary judgment, the proceedings were already stayed by the concededly timely summary judgment motion brought by HJD. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. In opposition plaintiff's expert did not offer an opinion as to what specific injury plaintiff endured as a result of HJD's decision not to perform surgery and made only broad conjectures which were insufficient to defeat HJD's motion (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). Given the budgetary constraints presently confronted by the court system, this is hardly a fitting time to require trial of a matter devoid of apparent merit and otherwise amenable to disposition on motion, and the "genuine need" to be accommodated is that of the court to proceed expeditiously (id.). McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. First of all, under the authority of Brill [2 NY3d 648 (2004)], the cross[]motion was clearly untimely without any explanation, and counsel is simply wrong when he argues that the cross[]motion raises the same issues as the motion timely made by [HJD]. However, the expert failed to support his assertion with an analysis of the multiple diagnostic tests and physical examinations conducted over the years. Tue 7:00 am . Some decisions also reason that because CPLR 3212(b) gives the court the power to search the record and grant summary judgment to any party without the necessity of a cross motion, the court may address an untimely cross motion at least as to the causes of action or issues that are the subject of the timely motion (see Filannino, 34 AD3d at 281, citing Dunham v Hilco Constr. Location in NY, NJ, CT and Florida. Sinai, where he was first seen in the orthopedic clinic on April 21, 2005. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Specialties. Overall rating 4.92 Wait time 3.69 Bedside manner 4.85 Your trust is our top concern, so providers can't pay to alter or remove reviews. There is no suggestion that the narrow interpretation imposed upon the term "good cause" in Brill is meant to apply in circumstances, such as here, where a timely motion is followed by a corresponding motion that is not. Musculoskeletal Infection Society The majority sustained the action as against HSS as a result of the hospital's submission of its summary judgment motion after the date set by the trial court pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). Brill emphasizes that summary judgment is advantageous to the parties by "avoiding needless litigation cost and delay" and constitutes "a great benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York State trial courts" since it "may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Find Providers by Specialty Find Providers by Procedure. Here, however, because HSS and HJD have different treatment histories with plaintiff, HJD's timely motion did not clearly put plaintiff on notice of the need to gather evidence in opposition to the arguments ultimately proffered by the HSS defendants. Appellate Division, First Department There is a shorter minimum notice requirement, three or seven days, as compared with the minimum eight-day notice requirement in CPLR 2214(b). However, disregarding the untimeliness of HSS's motion, the court held that issues of fact precluded HSS from being granted summary judgment. He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. Dr. Frelinghuysen testified that, in or about December 2004, after he reviewed plaintiff's film with Dr. Frederico Girardi, another HSS orthopaedic surgeon, he decided that surgery was not an option for treating plaintiff because it would expose plaintiff to myriad risks, and not improve his condition. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion 541 East 71st Street New York, NY 10021 Physicians at this location Specialties Family Medicine Orthopedic Spine Surgery Orthopedic Surgery. hilton houston address. According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. He accepts multiple insurance plans, including Medicare. Footnote 1: To reiterate, it was the timely motion by HJD that delayed trial, not the motion submitted by HSS while HJD's motion was pending, a situation addressed neither by the statute nor Brill. This is an aberrant medical malpractice action brought against two hospitals for declining to provide additional surgical treatment to plaintiff because, in their estimation, further surgical intervention presented an unjustifiable risk of quadriplegia or death and offered little to no prospect of relieving his symptomatology. Post-operatively, in February and April 2006, plaintiff indicated that he felt returning strength in his right arm although not his left, and a general "slow improvement." Although raised in the context of a purported "cross motion," resolution of this appeal requires us to once again revisit the issue of untimely summary judgment motions. Peltz & Walker, New York (Bhalinder L. Rikhye of counsel), for appellants-respondents. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. 2013 NY Slip Op 08548 To lend legal support to plaintiff's theory would place the surgeon in an impossible situation perform a procedure that is deemed to be ill-advised, taking into consideration the individual physician's experience and the available hospital facilities, and be subject to liability for any aggravation of the patient's condition or decline to operate and face liability for refusing to assume the substantial risk that surgery entails. In that context, where "[t]he violation is clear," the "good cause" required to obtain relief from the statutory time limit is "a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness" in filing the motion (id. He submitted the affidavit of his medical expert, Michael J. Murphy, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Connecticut. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. In the opinion of HJD's expert, surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option," as no surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's "significant" neurological deficits that had existed for many years. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. Electrical studies performed on October 26, 2006 revealed no significant change from those done in 2005 although there was evidence of fibrotic changes; [*4]the studies showed the presence of moderate right and mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). An overly expansive application of Brill invites unintended consequences following from the Legislature's 1996 amendment of CPLR 3212(a). James, in turn, relied on Rosa v R.H. Macy Co. (272 AD2d 87 [1st Dept 2000]), where Macy moved for summary judgment and two other defendants untimely cross-moved against it for indemnity; the motion and another timely cross motion were still pending, and we held that the untimely cross motions should have been considered. In opposition, Murphy's opinions were "somewhat conclusory." THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER HSS admitted that its motion seeking summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint as against it was filed nearly two months after the court-imposed deadline for making dispositive motions,[FN2] but argued that it should be considered because it sought relief on the same issues raised in codefendant HJD's timely motion. Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. Of course, it must be pointed out that the cross-movant would have good cause for its late motion in that situation, and the cross motion would be evaluated on its merits (see e.g. Michael B. Education VANDERBILT UNIV SCH OF MED, Medical School 2006 It was also Dr. Girardi's opinion that, given plaintiff's extensive spinal disease and the prospect of low improvement, the risk of surgery including quadriplegia or even death, was clearly not warranted. Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. Michael M. Alexiades, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Uniondale Call for an appointment 212.774.7557 Michael P. Ast, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Paramus Call for an appointment 201.599.8056 Jason L. Blevins, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Westchester Call for an appointment 212.606.1248 It is a distorted analysis of my position. Auth. All Sessions by Michael B. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. However, for reasons bereft of any sound basis in law or judicial policy, it refuses, primarily on procedural grounds, to apply the same reasoning to dismiss the complaint as against HSS. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades is an orthopedist in Lake Success, New York and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area, including Hospital for Special Surgery and New York-Presbyterian. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. We help patients restore the quality of life they deserve and desire. Health A-Z. I even liked the food I compared it to high-end diner fare). About eight years later, in March 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS complaining of lower back pain and severe left leg pain; he was treated with a course of steroid injections. . A cross motion is "merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion" (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1; see CPLR 2215). Moreover, while there is mention of a surgical option in the 2004 hospital records, the evidence does not show that evaluation of the attendant risks and benefits was undertaken until October 2004, culminating in the December 2004 decision that the associated risk was too great. After residency, Dr. Cross completed his fellowship in Adult Reconstruction at Rush University Medical Center in 2013where he won the Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award. Twelve lines are currently operational (counting Lines T3a and T3b as separate lines), with extensions and additional lines in both construction and planning stages. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. 212.606.1823 212.734.3833 (fax) www.hss.edu alumni@hss.edu. In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. Maysville Radiology Group 991 Medical Park Dr Maysville, KY 41056. Financial Disclosures. Dr. Murphy stated that the delays were a departure from the standards of good medical practice. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. Particularly absent from the discourse is any consideration of the significant burden to be imposed on the court in presiding over a trial against HSS as opposed to proceeding summarily by way of motion. Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. He was found to have "significant" cervical stenosis and compression of his spinal cord, as well as cord signal change especially at C3-4 and C4-5. Jean McDaniel Award, American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. Alumni News. Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. Removal of Skunks, Raccoons, Squirrels, Bats, Snakes, and More! Dr. Ast is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery and Hospital for Special Surgery. by Peter Gordon. "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Cross, MD. The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. 35 Mayflower Avenue Unit B Stamford, CT 06906 Phone +1 (212) 987-OSET (6738) CONTACT US . "Thus, the rationale for the court's denial was articulated as being that the "cross motion" was untimely. Because of the particular procedural posture of this matter, the order directing that it proceed to trial is ultimately futile, but application of the majority's rationale will unnecessarily burden both courts and litigants. Lapin is one in a line of cases holding that an untimely cross motion may be considered on its merits when it and the timely motion address essentially the same issues. The best working with the best. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. See times, locations, directions & contact information for Dr. Michael Cross in Indianapolis, IN. HSS argued to the motion court, as it does to this Court, that its motion should be considered on the merits because it merely presents the same arguments made by HJD. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. . However, bending the rule results in the practical elimination of the "good cause shown" aspect of CPLR 3212(a), and the clear intent of Brill. After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." Neither the motion court nor the majority identifies any prejudice that was incurred by any party due to HSS's motion that might warrant requiring HSS to forfeit summary determination. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. In particular, the records suggest that HSS believed surgery was appropriate and helpful in as early as 2003, surgery is repeatedly mentioned in the records of 2004, and plaintiff believed that surgery had been scheduled. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Request an Appointment 317.275.6191 (Fax: 317.884.5360) Meet Dr. Michael Cross Dr. Cross earned his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. From the time of my first phone call to my most recent post-op consultation I knew I was in the hands of a pre-eminent surgical team. Electronic tests revealed that plaintiff's cervical condition was significantly the same as in 2005 which supported Dr. Hecht's post surgical findings. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well" (16 NY3d at 81). Remote Second Opinion Contrary to the majority's assertion, I do not advocate limiting application "of Brill to those actions where a party files a motion for summary judgment long after the deadline for dispositive motions and the matter is on the trial calendar." He currently practices at Hospital for Special Surgery and is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery. Dr. Cross is board-certified with several association memberships, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society, and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. OrthoIndy Hospital is physician-owned and operated. Type a specific doctor's name, body part, procedure or condition, then choose from the options. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. My stay at the Hotel for Special Surgery was flawless. Co., LLC (48 AD3d 337 [1st Dept 2008]), for the principle that there is an exception to Brill for cases where a late motion or cross motion is essentially duplicative of a timely motion. Were the motions properly labeled they would not be judicially considered without an explanation for the delay. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. The majority suggests that an independent basis for finding HSS to have been negligent might be found in the expert's opinion that "surgery for [plaintiff] was indicated as early as June 2003." According to plaintiff, he understood that surgery would be performed in late December, and he began obtaining the necessary medical clearances. "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. To the extent HSS's motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims by HJD, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. The clinic notes of June 11, 2004 indicate that his "symptoms have progressed with increased right shoulder atrophy"; a new round of studies was scheduled. Dr. Olsewski opined that based upon plaintiff's medical, diagnostic and surgical history, further cervical surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option." Sinai, in October 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD's neurology clinic, reporting a lack of improvement in upper extremity strength, and some pain and numbness on the right arm and hand. The best that surgery could do was stop the myelopathy, but there was risk of permanent paralysis or death, "well beyond the standard for such risks for cervical spine cases." Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. Dr. Anthony Petrizzo of HJD examined plaintiff on February 11, 2005, finding severe upper extremity atrophy, with deltoid strength at 1/5, and 2/5 strength to the biceps. We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits. Dr. Michael A. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Tel: (212) 606-1000. RX Drugs & Medications Vitamins & Supplements. ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. In Brill the Court of Appeals indicated that late-filed summary judgment motions are "another example of sloppy practice threatening our judicial system" (2 NY3d at 652, emphasis added), and pointed to its earlier decision, Kihl v Pfeffer (94 NY2d 118 [1999]), which affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to respond to a court order within the court-ordered time frame. New York, NY, 10021. We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. If the issue had been compression, surgery would have been performed to prevent further progression, but due to the degeneration of the spinal cord, decompressive laminectomies would have done little or nothing to address plaintiff's upper extremity issues. Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. ", As to the delay causing any injury, the doctor stated that there was no identifiable injury caused by any alleged delay during the four month period between when plaintiff was first seen at HJD and when he first went to Mt. The problem in the case at bar is that HSS's motion, in addition to being untimely, is not a true cross motion. The result will be judicial economy, as well as lawyerly economy. Furthermore, both the memorandum and Brill identify an adversarial party's lack of adequate time to prepare a response to the motion as the problem to be addressed. In July 2005, he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon who determined that plaintiff needed surgery to prevent his condition from worsening, not in order to regain function. Dr. Michael Cross, MD works in New York, NY as an Orthopedic Surgery Specialist and has 16 years experience. Sinai. Drugs & Supplements. Allowing movants to file untimely, mislabeled "cross motions" without good cause shown for the delay, affords them an unfair and improper advantage. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the "recurring scenario" of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect "ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice" (2 NY3d at 650). Dr. Michael Brian Cross, MD Orthopedic Surgery Leave a review Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46278 12 other locations (317) 802-2000 Overview Locations OVERVIEW. The progress notes from June 25, 2005 indicate, in part, that he had "marked stenosis throughout spine," and "marked atrophy at both shoulder girdles." The cross movant may rely on the papers submitted with the main motion to support the relief sought. All rights reserved. The Mt. Dr. Cross completed his internship at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in 2007 and his residency at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York in 2012 where he was awarded the Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award and the Jean McDaniel Award, which is given to the Chief Resident who best demonstrates leadership, professionalism and ethics in the care of patients. He further opined that there was no identifiable injury sustained in the four-month period between plaintiff's first visit at HJD and when he first went to Mt. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY HSS did not merely rely on the papers amassed by HJD, and as the motion court correctly noted, "[d]ifferences [in the factual record] necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]" and he was "a patient [at HJD] from only February 2005 to September 2005. Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). The value of enforcing the terms of the statute as written is that attorneys will make sure their motions are timely filed or that there is a good reason for the lateness. The same expertise that has earned HSS the #1 ranking for orthopedics in the world by Newsweek and the #1 ranking in the U.S. 13 years in a row according to U.S. News & World Report* is available locally through a unique collaboration with the caring experts at Stamford Health. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. In our view, Brill expresses the Court's overall desire to curb "sloppy" litigation practices, one of them being late summary judgment motions. Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. He further opined that had the surgery been performed in 2003, plaintiff's "final outcome would have been substantially improved and he would not have sustained such a severe degree of weakness and loss of function of his right upper extremity." He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. In July, 2005, plaintiff saw orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Hecht of Mt. I am returning on Oct 9, 2020, for my left knee and am actually looking forward to it. Find All Providers . Opinion by Feinman, J. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Rote application of the summary judgment provision, which permits the court to "set a date after which no such motion may be made," leads to the result advocated by the majority strict rejection of the motion as untimely without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, relegating the moving party to litigating its position at trial. at 236, citing Andrea, Miceli, Brill, and Kihl). Finally, the majority adopts the trial court's conclusion that the expert's opinion is imprecise with respect to the nature of the alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition and the extent to which each hospital bears responsibility. While continuing at HJD, plaintiff also sought treatment at Mt. There is nothing in the language of the statute to suggest this and it opens the door to abuse; once one movant has timely filed, any other party can argue that its motion, no matter when filed, should be addressed. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. This is clear by tracing Lapin's antecedents. They work like a well-oiled machine. Footnote 2: Supreme Court's extension of the time to file dispositive motions had given the parties a total of 82 days after the filing of the note of issue on August 24, 2011. Thereafter, the motion court issued an order which provided that "[t]he time for the various defendants to move for summary judgment is extended through November 14, 2011." Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. As to the procedural issue raised, the majority has devised a solution to a problem recognized neither by the Legislature nor the Court of Appeals. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. In Frelinghuysen's words, he and Girardi decided that surgery "would not help." Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill.
Best Pacifier For Gagging Baby, 2007 Honda Accord Check Engine Light, Articles D