Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
--------------------------------------------- -----------------X
KLARA KHUTORYANSKAYA '
Index No.: 521431/2016
Plaintiff,
-against-
AFFIRMATION IN
OMOSITION TO
LASER & MICROSURGERY, P.C. d/b/a NY LASIK LASER &
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
MICROSURGERY BROOKLYN EYE SURGERY
CENTER L.L.C.
INSTITUTE,
d/b/a BROOKLYN EYE SURGERY
STM NOTE OMSSUE
CENTER,
ALEXANDER RABINOVICH, M.D., and JOHN AND JANE
Motion # 5
DOES 1 - 100 (Said names it the intention of
being fictitious, being
Plaintiff to designate any and all individuals, parties, corporations or
entities, if any, having or claiming a knowledge of the foregoing
complaint),
Defendants.
_________________________________.____________ _________..... -------X
YELENA KOZLOVA, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the
State of New York, hereby affirms the following statements to be true upon information and
belief under penalties of perjury:
1. I am an attorney-at-law duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New
York and the associate of the firm of KARASIK LAW GROUP, P.C., attorneys of record for the
Plaintiff in this action.
2. I submit this affirmation in opposition to Defendant ALEXANDER
RABINOVICH, M.D's Motion to Vacate Note of Issue and strike this matter from the trial
calendar.
3. This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff's claim for medical malpractice that occurred on
August 22, 2016.
1
1 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019
ARGUMENT
4. On or about June 29, 2018 all parties attended a compliance conference at the Note
of Issue Final Conference Part. At that conference an order was issued directing the Plaintiff to
file a Note of Issue on or before December 28, 2018. Exhibit A hereta The Court was fully aware
that there was significant outstanding discovery when issuing this order.
5. The Order also laid out the schedule for the remaining discovery. See, Id.
6. Plaintiff timely filed a Note of Issue on or about December 28, 2018 together with
an Affinnation of Compliance. Exhibit B hereta
7. The new policy promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kings County allows for a
filing of a Note of Issue, despite outstanding discovery. This was all discussed at the Final
Conference on December 28, 2018, and details were put into the Order.
8. Presently, depositions of all defendants are outstanding.
9. Defendants did not send a notice for Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination.
10. Plaintiff does not oppose the extension of time to file motions for Summary
Judgment, except asks that the extension be granted to all parties and not just Defendant. However,
Plaintiff vehemently opposes striking the Note of Issue and removing the case from the trial
calendar. Plaintiff was ordered to file the Note of Issue on or before December 28, 2018 and
Plaintiff fully complied with the court order as instructed during the Final Conference by the court
clerk. Plaintiff should not be punished by having to re-file and pay another filing fee, when all
Plaintiff did was follow a court order and the instructions of the court clerk.
11. Vacating the Note of Issue and striking the action from the calendar would go
against the principles of judicial expediency and fairness.
2
2 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019
12. It isclear that Defendant's motion must be denied to the extent that itis asking for
an order to vacate Note of Issue. Plaintiff does not oppose the part of the motion that asks for an
order extending time to file suninleuy judgment motions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's motion be denied in its
entirety with the exception of the request extension of time for both parties to file for summary
judgment, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 13, 2019
Brooklyn, New York
KARASIK LAW GROUP, P.C.
By: Yelena Kozlova, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Klara Khutoryanskaya
1810 Voorhies Avenue, Suite 9
Brooklyn, New York 11235
Tel.: (718) 502-9112
TO: Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Laser & Microsurgery, P.C. s/h/a/ Laser & Microsurgery P.C.
d/b/a NY Lasik Laser & Microsurgery Institute
90 Merrick Avenue
East Meadow, NY 11554
Tel.: (516) 222-8500
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Brooklyn Eye Surgery Center L.L.C.
d/b/a Brooklyn Eye Surgery Center
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, New York 10604
Tel.: (914) 323-7000
3
3 of 4
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019
Ekblom & Partners LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Alexander Rabinovich, M D.
21st
850 Third Avenue, Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel.: (646) 677-6000
4
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------- -----------------X KLARA KHUTORYANSKAYA ' Index No.: 521431/2016 Plaintiff, -against- AFFIRMATION IN OMOSITION TO LASER & MICROSURGERY, P.C. d/b/a NY LASIK LASER & DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MICROSURGERY BROOKLYN EYE SURGERY CENTER L.L.C. INSTITUTE, d/b/a BROOKLYN EYE SURGERY STM NOTE OMSSUE CENTER, ALEXANDER RABINOVICH, M.D., and JOHN AND JANE Motion # 5 DOES 1 - 100 (Said names it the intention of being fictitious, being Plaintiff to designate any and all individuals, parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming a knowledge of the foregoing complaint), Defendants. _________________________________.____________ _________..... -------X YELENA KOZLOVA, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following statements to be true upon information and belief under penalties of perjury: 1. I am an attorney-at-law duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and the associate of the firm of KARASIK LAW GROUP, P.C., attorneys of record for the Plaintiff in this action. 2. I submit this affirmation in opposition to Defendant ALEXANDER RABINOVICH, M.D's Motion to Vacate Note of Issue and strike this matter from the trial calendar. 3. This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff's claim for medical malpractice that occurred on August 22, 2016. 1 1 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019 ARGUMENT 4. On or about June 29, 2018 all parties attended a compliance conference at the Note of Issue Final Conference Part. At that conference an order was issued directing the Plaintiff to file a Note of Issue on or before December 28, 2018. Exhibit A hereta The Court was fully aware that there was significant outstanding discovery when issuing this order. 5. The Order also laid out the schedule for the remaining discovery. See, Id. 6. Plaintiff timely filed a Note of Issue on or about December 28, 2018 together with an Affinnation of Compliance. Exhibit B hereta 7. The new policy promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kings County allows for a filing of a Note of Issue, despite outstanding discovery. This was all discussed at the Final Conference on December 28, 2018, and details were put into the Order. 8. Presently, depositions of all defendants are outstanding. 9. Defendants did not send a notice for Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination. 10. Plaintiff does not oppose the extension of time to file motions for Summary Judgment, except asks that the extension be granted to all parties and not just Defendant. However, Plaintiff vehemently opposes striking the Note of Issue and removing the case from the trial calendar. Plaintiff was ordered to file the Note of Issue on or before December 28, 2018 and Plaintiff fully complied with the court order as instructed during the Final Conference by the court clerk. Plaintiff should not be punished by having to re-file and pay another filing fee, when all Plaintiff did was follow a court order and the instructions of the court clerk. 11. Vacating the Note of Issue and striking the action from the calendar would go against the principles of judicial expediency and fairness. 2 2 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019 12. It isclear that Defendant's motion must be denied to the extent that itis asking for an order to vacate Note of Issue. Plaintiff does not oppose the part of the motion that asks for an order extending time to file suninleuy judgment motions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's motion be denied in its entirety with the exception of the request extension of time for both parties to file for summary judgment, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: February 13, 2019 Brooklyn, New York KARASIK LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Yelena Kozlova, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Klara Khutoryanskaya 1810 Voorhies Avenue, Suite 9 Brooklyn, New York 11235 Tel.: (718) 502-9112 TO: Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP Attorneys for Defendant Laser & Microsurgery, P.C. s/h/a/ Laser & Microsurgery P.C. d/b/a NY Lasik Laser & Microsurgery Institute 90 Merrick Avenue East Meadow, NY 11554 Tel.: (516) 222-8500 Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP Attorneys for Defendant Brooklyn Eye Surgery Center L.L.C. d/b/a Brooklyn Eye Surgery Center 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, New York 10604 Tel.: (914) 323-7000 3 3 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2019 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 521431/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 87 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2019 Ekblom & Partners LLP Attorneys for Defendant Alexander Rabinovich, M D. 21st 850 Third Avenue, Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel.: (646) 677-6000 4 4 of 4