| McKenzie v Jack D. Weiler Hosp. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03017 [171 AD3d 615] |
| April 23, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Patrice McKenzie et al., Respondents, v Jack D. Weiler Hospital et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellants.
Morelli & Lassalle, LLP, New City (Doralba Lassalle of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis J. Lubell, J.), entered October 11, 2018, which denied defendants-appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying the motion to dismiss (see Hernandez v Chaparro, 95 AD3d 745 [1st Dept 2012]). In opposition to appellants' motion, plaintiffs were required to "demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious claim" (Stevens v Stevens, 165 AD2d 780, 781 [1st Dept 1990]). Here, plaintiffs offered a reasonable excuse based on their need to receive and review the medical records forming the basis for the medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims (see Rose v Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr., 268 AD2d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2000]; Aquilar v Nassau Health Care Corp., 40 AD3d 788, 789 [2d Dept 2007]).
As to the merits, plaintiffs offered the medical records of plaintiff Patrice McKenzie, which contain admissions sufficient to establish the potential merits of plaintiffs' action based on the conduct of non-moving defendant Dr. Gary Goldberg for, inter alia, lack of informed consent (see Adams v Agrawal, 187 AD2d 886, 887 [3d Dept 1992]; cf. Marcello v Flecher, 150 AD3d 1457, 1459-1460 [3d Dept 2017] ["there indeed are limited instances in which . . . the pertinent hospital/medical records . . . may be tendered in lieu of an affidavit of merit"]). The records suggest that McKenzie consented to the removal of her fallopian tubes in the event that malignancy was discovered during the exploratory laparoscopy which she was scheduled to undergo; no malignancy was discovered during the procedure; but, defendants nonetheless removed her fallopian tubes bilaterally and, in doing so, caused defects of the small bowel and sigmoid colon. Concur—Renwick, J.P., Gische, Webber, Singh, JJ.