FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2013

Transcription

1 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2013 MP-1172-B ADS/dp SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU X CATHY MUMFORD, -against- Plaintiff, SURESH PATEL, M.D., JATINDER SINGH, M.D., QUEENS LONG ISLAND MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., MDNETWORK and MD-IT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, LLC, Index No /13 VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants X Defendant, JATINDER SINGH, M.D., by his attorneys, FUMUSO, KELLY, DeVERNA, SNYDER, SWART & FARRELL, LLP as and for his Verified Answer to the Verified Amended Complaint of the plaintiff herein, respectfully alleges upon information and belief as follows: ANSWERING THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FIRST: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraphs numbered and designated 1" and 6 of the plaintiff s Verified Complaint and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. SECOND: Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph numbered and designated 2 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint.

2 THIRD: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph numbered and designated 4 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint except admits that this answering defendant was and is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York engaged in the practice of his profession in the State of New York and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. FOURTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph designated 5 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint, except admits that this answering defendant rendered certain professional services to the plaintiff and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. FIFTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph numbered and designated 7 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint except admits Queens Long Island Medical Group, P.C., had offices in Queens and Nassau Counties New York including an office located in Cambria Heights, and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. SIXTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraphs numbered and designated 8" and 10 of the

3 plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint except admits defendant, JATINDER SINGH, M.D., was an employee of the defendant, Queens Long Island Medical Group, P.C. in 2010, and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. SEVENTH: Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph numbered and designated 9 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint. EIGHTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraphs numbered and designated 11", 12", 13", 14", 15" and 16 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint except admits defendant, Suresh Patel, M.D., was a physician licensed to practice medicine in NY State affiliated with Queens Long Island Medical Group, P.C. who rendered certain professional services to the plaintiff herein, and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. NINTH: Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered and designated 17", 19" and 20 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint. TENTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph numbered and designated 18 of the plaintiff s

4 Verified Amended Complaint except as to the defendant, JATINDER SINGH, M.D., as an employee of Queens Long Island Medical Group, P.C., denies all allegations of negligence, and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. ANSWERING THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: ELEVENTH: With respect to paragraph 21 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint, the defendant repeats and realleges paragraphs numbered and designated FIRST through TENTH, inclusive of this Answer. TWELFTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph numbered and designated 22 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. THIRTEENTH: Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered and designated 23", 24", 25", 26" and 27 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint. ANSWERING THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: FOURTEENTH: With respect to paragraph 28 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint, the defendant repeats and realleges paragraphs numbered and designated FIRST through THIRTEENTH, inclusive of this Answer.

5 FIFTEENTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraphs numbered and designated 29", 30", 31", 32", 33", 34", 35", 36", 37", 38", 39" and 40 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. SIXTEENTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to paragraph numbered and designated 41 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint except admits that the July 13, 2010 mammography report did not accurately reflect the dictation of same by Dr. Singh and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. SEVENTEENTH: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbered and designated 42" and 43 of the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint and respectfully submits all questions of fact and law to this Honorable Court. AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: EIGHTEENTH: That the injuries of the plaintiff were caused in whole or in part by her own contributory negligence and/or culpable conduct and/or by persons and/or events over which this defendant had no control and her claims are therefore barred or the amount of same is diminished accordingly.

6 AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: NINETEENTH: That the within action and/or the cause of action against defendant is barred as not having been brought within the time prescribed by statute or rule of law. AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTIETH: That if any liability is found as against this answering defendant, then said liability will constitute 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable and, as such, the liability of this answering defendant to plaintiff for non-economic loss shall be limited and shall not exceed this answering defendant s equitable share, as provided in Article 16 of the CPLR. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTY-FIRST: That plaintiff has failed to join all persons needed for a just adjudication of this action. AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTY-SECOND: That the defendants be entitled to the General Obligations Law Section affirmative defenses including, but not limited to, release, payment, settlement, res judicata, collateral estoppel and accord and satisfaction. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTY-THIRD: Upon information and belief, plaintiff has received remuneration and/or compensation for some or all of

7 her claimed economic loss and answering defendant is entitled to have any verdict or judgment reduced by the amount of that remuneration or compensation pursuant to CPLR AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTY-FOURTH: That the plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused by acts or omissions of persons or entities other than the defendant. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: TWENTY-FIFTH: If plaintiff is entitled to recover damages the loss of earnings or impairment of earnings ability against defendants by reason of the matters alleged in the complaint, liability for which is hereby denied, then pursuant to CPLR 4546, the amount of damages recoverable against said defendant, if any, shall be reduced by the amount of federal, state and local income tax which the plaintiff would have been obligated by law to pay. AS AND FOR A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS, MDNETWORK AND MD-IT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, LLC TWENTY-SIXTH: That if the plaintiff was caused to sustain injuries and damages as alleged in the Amended Complaint, and recover thereon, the cross-claiming party is entitled to judgment over and against the co-defendants against whom this cross-claim is asserted, for the full amount of that recovery, or any part thereof, in accordance with the relative responsibility

8 of the co-defendants against whom this cross-claim is asserted, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the co-defendants against whom this cross-claim is asserted. WHEREFORE, defendant demands judgment dismissing the plaintiff s Verified Amended Complaint and the granting of the cross complaint, together with the costs and disbursements of this action. Dated: Hauppauge, New York August 14, 2013 Yours, etc., FUMUSO, KELLY, DeVERNA, SNYDER, SWART & FARRELL, LLP Attorneys for Defendant JATINDER SINGH, M.D. 110 Marcus Blvd. Hauppauge, New York (631) TO: WINGATE, RUSSOTTI, SHAPIRO & HALPERIN, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 420 Lexington Avenue, 2750 New York, New York (212) SILVERSON, PARERES & LOMBARDI, LLP Attorneys for Defendants SURESH PATEL, M.D. and QUEENS LONG ISLAND MEDICAL GROUP, P.C. th 192 Lexington Avenue, 17 Floor New York, New York (212) RIFKIN & RADLER, ESQS. Attorneys for Defendant MD-IT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, LLC and MDNETWORK 926 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale, New York (516)