X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46475 Justice Carey PLAINTIFF ASSERTED violations of General Business Law ��349 and 350 in his medical malpractice action alleging defendant physician’s negligent performance of Lasik eye surgery. The doctor sought dismissal of plaintiff’s GBL ��349 and 350 claims for his failure to state a cause of action or, alternatively, his failure to comply with pleading requirements of Civil Practice Law and Rules ��3013 and 3016(b). The court denied dismissal, finding that plaintiff’s affidavit averring to his hearing of radio advertisements and seeing of newspaper and magazine advertisements regarding defendant’s Lasik surgery stated claims under ��349 and 350. It ordered a second supplemental bill of particulars, specifying where and when plaintiff heard and saw the advertisements. Noting the silence of plaintiff’s affidavit and supplemental bill of particulars on the issue, the court found that defendant may not have had sufficient notice, for purposes of CPLR �3016(b), as to when plaintiff heard or saw the advertisements.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.