Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
--------------------------------------- x
MURIEL RICHARDSON,
AFFIRMATION IN
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION
-against- Index No. 21623/3013E
EAST HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION File No. 2013-000145
CENTER, VENKATCHALA PATHY, M.D., JACOBI
MEDICAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND Assigned Judge:
HOSPITALS CORPORATION and COLIN D. Justice George J. Silver
CHAFONG, M.D.,
Defendants.
____-------------___________..----------------------------------------- X
GIA ROSE DICOLA, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State
of New York and an Associate Counsel in the Office of Andrea Cohen, General Counsel for
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, affirms the truth of the following pursuant to
CPLR R 2106, upon information and belief, and based on the records maintained in the office of
the said General Counsel.
1. I am an Associate Counsel in the Office of ANDREA COHEN, General
Counsel of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and attorney for defendants NEW
YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION s/h/a NEW YORK CITY
HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER and COLIN
D. CHAFONG, M.D., (hereinafter collectively "NYC H+H") herein. I am familiar with the facts
and circumstances surrounding this litigation, based on the prior motion practice and the records
maintained by the office of the General Counsel in the defense hereof.
- 1 -
1 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
2. This affirmation is respectfully submitted in opposition to plaintiff's
motion to renew and reargue Justice Silver's decision dated August 2, 2018, which granted the
defendant NYC H+H's motion to dismiss for failure to substitute an administrator. During the
13 month pendency of the motion plaintiff never submitted opposition. The motion, which was
made by order to show cause, was originally returnable on May 2, 2017. It was adjourned 8
times presumably at plaintiff's request until itwas fully submitted on June 25, 2018. At no time
during the pendency of the motion did plaintiff submit any opposition papers, or indeed any type
of documentation to convey either her opposition to the motion or demonstrate that she was, in
fact, making an effort to obtain an administrator.
3. Pursuant to CPLR R 2221(a) a motion for leave to renew or to reargue a
order."
prior motion shall be made "to the judge who signed the See also, Subin v. Thaw, 16
(1st
AD2d 750 Dep't 1962). Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff's motion to
should heard and decided by Justice George J. Silver who issued the subject order.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RENEW AND REARGUE
SHOULD BE DENIED.
4. There is no basis for plaintiff's request to renew and reargue the court's
decision to grant the defendant's motion which was submitted unopposed.
5. Rule 2221 of the CPLR sets for the directives a party must follow when
they move to obtain relief that affects a prior motion or order. CPLR R 2221(d) states that a
motion to reargue shall be specifically identified as such and "be based upon matters of fact or
law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but
motion."
shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior (emphasis added) Whereas
CPLR R 2221(e), states that a motion to renew shall similarly be identified as such and "be
- 2 -
2 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination
or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior
determination; and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on
motion."
the prior (emphasis added).
6. Although plaintiff states that she is moving to both renew and reargue, her
notice of motion and affirmation in support site only to CPLR R 2221(d), which governs a
motion to reargue - not a motion to renew - as her basis for relief. Motions to reargue are not
designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to argue once again the
very questions previously decided. See ag., McGill v. Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593 (2d Dep't
(13t
1999); William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22 Dep't 1992). Moreover,
it ishornbook law that "motions for re-argument should be founded on papers showing clearly
that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by
court."
the Mount v. Mitchell, 32 NY 702 (1865) (emphasis added).
7. Here, plaintiff did not submit any papers in opposition to NYC H+H's
motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court should completely disregard paragraphs 6 through 17
History"
of plaintiff's affirntation outlined as "Procedural as the information contained therein
was not submitted to the court when the prior motion was decided. Simply stated, the court
cannot overlook or misapprehend facts when deciding the prior motion if no facts were ever
offered for the court to review or apprehend. Plaintiff's labeling these paragraphs as "Procedural
History"
is a misnomer since the entire section does not pertain to the procedural history of this
civil matter, but rather an outline of material that plaintiff should have and could have submitted
in opposition to the underlying motion. Accordingly, plaintiff's application to reargue the prior
- 3 -
3 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
motion which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on default after it was pending for 13
months should be denied.
8. To the extent the court wishes to view the plaintiff's application as a
motion to renew and not a motion to reargue, it should similarly be denied. Motions for leave to
renew are "granted sparingly and only in cases where there exists a valid excuse for failing to
application." (13t
submit additional facts on the original Beiny v. Wynyard, 132 A.D.2d 190
Dep't 1987). Renewal "is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised
presentation."
due diligence in making their first factual Rubinstein v. Goldman, 225 A.D.2d
(1st
328 Dep't 1996) (citation omitted); see also Whalen v. New York City Dep't of Envtl.
(1st (1st
Protection, 89 A.D.3d 416 Dep't 2011); Linden v. Moskowitz, 294 A.D.2d 114 Dep't
2002).
9. As set forth above, a motion to renew must state the new facts not offered
and a reasonable justification explaining the failure to present them. Here, it appears that the
History"
"Procedural section of plaintiff's motion contains a recitation of new facts that she
justification"
wishes to now be considered. The purported "reasonable for not submitting
opposition appears to be an argument that there was law office failure on the part of a now
terminated associate. Nowhere in plaintiff's 5 page affirmation in support does she site to any
case that supports the proposition that law office failure, generally, or this type of law office
justification"
failure, specifically, has been held to be a "reasonable under the CPLR R
2221(e)(3).
10. Moreover, when the undersigned appeared on the April 3, 2018, motion
date, I expressed to Mr. Borukh that I had recently joined NYC H+H, was assigned to this
- 4 -
4 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
matter, had gone through the lengthy adjournment history prior to appearing on the motion, and
did not locate any opposition by the plaintiff either in my file or in the New York State Courts
Electronic Filing System. Mr. Borukh indicated that the office was working on getting in touch
with Ms. Richardson's next of kin, some of whom were homeless and/or otherwise difficult to
reach, and that he would be in touch.
11. The court should note that representatives from plaintiff's counsel Spar &
Bernstein, P.C., other than the terminated associate, appeared at the April 4, 2018, and June 25,
2018, motion adjourn dates. It is illogical for plaintiff's law firm to send counsel to court to
appear on the motion time and time again for over a year, and yet claim only after the motion is
submitted without that any opposition from them that they committed law office failure.
Moreover, in an e-filed matter such as this, not only is iteasy to track calendar appearances, it is
simple to determine and/or verify if a party has submitted any documents to an action, including
"registered"
a pending motion. This is true even if they are not to the particular action.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff's law office failure excuse is not a
justification"
"reasonable that warrants the court now consider facts which were readily available
during the 13 month pendency of the underlying motion, but were never offered in the form of
opposition.
default"
12. Similarly, this excuse should not be considered an "excusable
Order."
under CPLR R 5105(a), "Relief from Judgment or First, plaintiff did not move under
CPLR R 5105 to vacate the decision, which was not granted on default, but rather was granted in
part because itwas unopposed. Nevertheless, paragraph 18 of plaintiff's affirmation includes the
statement that they have met the standard under CPLR R 5105(a), not CPLR R 2221, by showing
- 5 -
5 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. As is noted, this is an application to
renew and argue under CPLR R 2221. As such, a reasonable excuse and a potentially
herein.1
meritorious defense are inapplicable
13. Second, plaintiff's argument under CPLR R 5105(a) is also misplaced.
The defendant's motion was not granted on default due to plaintiff's non-appearance, rather it
"unopposed"
was granted because plaintiff failed to submit opposition. Justice Silver makes this
clear at the outset of his decision.
14. Lastly, it is clear from the court's extensive analysis that Justice Silver
appropriately considered and applied the relevant law and facts when he rendered his decision.
After pointing out the plaintiff herself has been dead for over 2 years, and it has been over 4
years since she was treated at Jacobi Medical Center, Justice Silver found that "the inordinate,
unreasonable delay in appointing a representative to the estate of Muriel Richardson, and
defendants."
proceeding with the prosecution of this case has resulted in prejudice to the See
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Affirmation in Support.
15. In sum, plaintiff points to no new or misapprehended facts or law which
should change the court's determination which granted NYC H+H's motion to dismiss for failure
to appoint an administrator. As such, plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue should be denied.
1 Appeals medical
It should be further noted that the Court of established, "In cases involving a
malpractice cause of action, 'expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit'...
omitted)."
(internal citation Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 16 N.Y.3d 74, 80 (2010). Theplaintiff herein
has failed to provide the Court with an expert affidavit attesting to the meritorious nature of her claim.
- 6 -
6 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
CONCLUSION
34. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue the
underlying motion to dismiss for failure to substitute an administrator within a reasonable period
of time should be denied. The motion was originally made via order to show cause with a return
date of May 2, 2017. The motion was not submitted until 13 months later on June 25, 2018.
During the pendency of the motion and at least 8 adjournments, plaintiff was aware of the
motion, appeared at calendar appearances on the motion, was advised at least 2 months before
the final submission date that no opposition had been received, and still plaintiff never submitted
any opposition to the motion and failed to provide evidence that an administrator was being
substituted.
WHEREFORE, itis respectfully requested that plaintiff's motion to renew and
reargue Justice Silver's order dated August 2, 2018, be denied.
Dated: New York, New York
October 9, 2018
GIA ROSE DICOLA
- 7 -
7 of 8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018
Index No. 21623/2013E
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
MURIEL RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff(s),
-against-
EAST HAVEN NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER,
VENKATCHALA, PATHY, M.D.,
JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER, NEW
YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
CORPORATION and COLIN D.
CHAFONG, M.D.,
Defendant(s).
AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION
ANDREA COHEN
General Counsel ofNew York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation
Attorney for New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation s/h/a Jacobi Medical Center, New
York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and
Colin D. Chafong
Office of Legal Affairs - Claim & Litigation
26th
55 Water Street, FlOOT
New York, New York 10041
Of Counsel: Gia DiCola
Tel: (646) 694-6589
File No. 2013-000145
Due and timely service ishereby admitted.
New York, N.Y , 201 . . .
.............................................
...............................................................................
Esq.
Attorney for..................................................................
- 9 -
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX --------------------------------------- x MURIEL RICHARDSON, AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiff, OPPOSITION -against- Index No. 21623/3013E EAST HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION File No. 2013-000145 CENTER, VENKATCHALA PATHY, M.D., JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND Assigned Judge: HOSPITALS CORPORATION and COLIN D. Justice George J. Silver CHAFONG, M.D., Defendants. ____-------------___________..----------------------------------------- X GIA ROSE DICOLA, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and an Associate Counsel in the Office of Andrea Cohen, General Counsel for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, affirms the truth of the following pursuant to CPLR R 2106, upon information and belief, and based on the records maintained in the office of the said General Counsel. 1. I am an Associate Counsel in the Office of ANDREA COHEN, General Counsel of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and attorney for defendants NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION s/h/a NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER and COLIN D. CHAFONG, M.D., (hereinafter collectively "NYC H+H") herein. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding this litigation, based on the prior motion practice and the records maintained by the office of the General Counsel in the defense hereof. - 1 - 1 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 2. This affirmation is respectfully submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue Justice Silver's decision dated August 2, 2018, which granted the defendant NYC H+H's motion to dismiss for failure to substitute an administrator. During the 13 month pendency of the motion plaintiff never submitted opposition. The motion, which was made by order to show cause, was originally returnable on May 2, 2017. It was adjourned 8 times presumably at plaintiff's request until itwas fully submitted on June 25, 2018. At no time during the pendency of the motion did plaintiff submit any opposition papers, or indeed any type of documentation to convey either her opposition to the motion or demonstrate that she was, in fact, making an effort to obtain an administrator. 3. Pursuant to CPLR R 2221(a) a motion for leave to renew or to reargue a order." prior motion shall be made "to the judge who signed the See also, Subin v. Thaw, 16 (1st AD2d 750 Dep't 1962). Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff's motion to should heard and decided by Justice George J. Silver who issued the subject order. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD BE DENIED. 4. There is no basis for plaintiff's request to renew and reargue the court's decision to grant the defendant's motion which was submitted unopposed. 5. Rule 2221 of the CPLR sets for the directives a party must follow when they move to obtain relief that affects a prior motion or order. CPLR R 2221(d) states that a motion to reargue shall be specifically identified as such and "be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but motion." shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior (emphasis added) Whereas CPLR R 2221(e), states that a motion to renew shall similarly be identified as such and "be - 2 - 2 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination; and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on motion." the prior (emphasis added). 6. Although plaintiff states that she is moving to both renew and reargue, her notice of motion and affirmation in support site only to CPLR R 2221(d), which governs a motion to reargue - not a motion to renew - as her basis for relief. Motions to reargue are not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to argue once again the very questions previously decided. See ag., McGill v. Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593 (2d Dep't (13t 1999); William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22 Dep't 1992). Moreover, it ishornbook law that "motions for re-argument should be founded on papers showing clearly that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by court." the Mount v. Mitchell, 32 NY 702 (1865) (emphasis added). 7. Here, plaintiff did not submit any papers in opposition to NYC H+H's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court should completely disregard paragraphs 6 through 17 History" of plaintiff's affirntation outlined as "Procedural as the information contained therein was not submitted to the court when the prior motion was decided. Simply stated, the court cannot overlook or misapprehend facts when deciding the prior motion if no facts were ever offered for the court to review or apprehend. Plaintiff's labeling these paragraphs as "Procedural History" is a misnomer since the entire section does not pertain to the procedural history of this civil matter, but rather an outline of material that plaintiff should have and could have submitted in opposition to the underlying motion. Accordingly, plaintiff's application to reargue the prior - 3 - 3 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 motion which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on default after it was pending for 13 months should be denied. 8. To the extent the court wishes to view the plaintiff's application as a motion to renew and not a motion to reargue, it should similarly be denied. Motions for leave to renew are "granted sparingly and only in cases where there exists a valid excuse for failing to application." (13t submit additional facts on the original Beiny v. Wynyard, 132 A.D.2d 190 Dep't 1987). Renewal "is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised presentation." due diligence in making their first factual Rubinstein v. Goldman, 225 A.D.2d (1st 328 Dep't 1996) (citation omitted); see also Whalen v. New York City Dep't of Envtl. (1st (1st Protection, 89 A.D.3d 416 Dep't 2011); Linden v. Moskowitz, 294 A.D.2d 114 Dep't 2002). 9. As set forth above, a motion to renew must state the new facts not offered and a reasonable justification explaining the failure to present them. Here, it appears that the History" "Procedural section of plaintiff's motion contains a recitation of new facts that she justification" wishes to now be considered. The purported "reasonable for not submitting opposition appears to be an argument that there was law office failure on the part of a now terminated associate. Nowhere in plaintiff's 5 page affirmation in support does she site to any case that supports the proposition that law office failure, generally, or this type of law office justification" failure, specifically, has been held to be a "reasonable under the CPLR R 2221(e)(3). 10. Moreover, when the undersigned appeared on the April 3, 2018, motion date, I expressed to Mr. Borukh that I had recently joined NYC H+H, was assigned to this - 4 - 4 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 matter, had gone through the lengthy adjournment history prior to appearing on the motion, and did not locate any opposition by the plaintiff either in my file or in the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System. Mr. Borukh indicated that the office was working on getting in touch with Ms. Richardson's next of kin, some of whom were homeless and/or otherwise difficult to reach, and that he would be in touch. 11. The court should note that representatives from plaintiff's counsel Spar & Bernstein, P.C., other than the terminated associate, appeared at the April 4, 2018, and June 25, 2018, motion adjourn dates. It is illogical for plaintiff's law firm to send counsel to court to appear on the motion time and time again for over a year, and yet claim only after the motion is submitted without that any opposition from them that they committed law office failure. Moreover, in an e-filed matter such as this, not only is iteasy to track calendar appearances, it is simple to determine and/or verify if a party has submitted any documents to an action, including "registered" a pending motion. This is true even if they are not to the particular action. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff's law office failure excuse is not a justification" "reasonable that warrants the court now consider facts which were readily available during the 13 month pendency of the underlying motion, but were never offered in the form of opposition. default" 12. Similarly, this excuse should not be considered an "excusable Order." under CPLR R 5105(a), "Relief from Judgment or First, plaintiff did not move under CPLR R 5105 to vacate the decision, which was not granted on default, but rather was granted in part because itwas unopposed. Nevertheless, paragraph 18 of plaintiff's affirmation includes the statement that they have met the standard under CPLR R 5105(a), not CPLR R 2221, by showing - 5 - 5 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. As is noted, this is an application to renew and argue under CPLR R 2221. As such, a reasonable excuse and a potentially herein.1 meritorious defense are inapplicable 13. Second, plaintiff's argument under CPLR R 5105(a) is also misplaced. The defendant's motion was not granted on default due to plaintiff's non-appearance, rather it "unopposed" was granted because plaintiff failed to submit opposition. Justice Silver makes this clear at the outset of his decision. 14. Lastly, it is clear from the court's extensive analysis that Justice Silver appropriately considered and applied the relevant law and facts when he rendered his decision. After pointing out the plaintiff herself has been dead for over 2 years, and it has been over 4 years since she was treated at Jacobi Medical Center, Justice Silver found that "the inordinate, unreasonable delay in appointing a representative to the estate of Muriel Richardson, and defendants." proceeding with the prosecution of this case has resulted in prejudice to the See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Affirmation in Support. 15. In sum, plaintiff points to no new or misapprehended facts or law which should change the court's determination which granted NYC H+H's motion to dismiss for failure to appoint an administrator. As such, plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue should be denied. 1 Appeals medical It should be further noted that the Court of established, "In cases involving a malpractice cause of action, 'expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit'... omitted)." (internal citation Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 16 N.Y.3d 74, 80 (2010). Theplaintiff herein has failed to provide the Court with an expert affidavit attesting to the meritorious nature of her claim. - 6 - 6 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 CONCLUSION 34. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue the underlying motion to dismiss for failure to substitute an administrator within a reasonable period of time should be denied. The motion was originally made via order to show cause with a return date of May 2, 2017. The motion was not submitted until 13 months later on June 25, 2018. During the pendency of the motion and at least 8 adjournments, plaintiff was aware of the motion, appeared at calendar appearances on the motion, was advised at least 2 months before the final submission date that no opposition had been received, and still plaintiff never submitted any opposition to the motion and failed to provide evidence that an administrator was being substituted. WHEREFORE, itis respectfully requested that plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue Justice Silver's order dated August 2, 2018, be denied. Dated: New York, New York October 9, 2018 GIA ROSE DICOLA - 7 - 7 of 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 10/09/2018 04:29 PM INDEX NO. 21623/2013E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/09/2018 Index No. 21623/2013E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX MURIEL RICHARDSON, Plaintiff(s), -against- EAST HAVEN NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, VENKATCHALA, PATHY, M.D., JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION and COLIN D. CHAFONG, M.D., Defendant(s). AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION ANDREA COHEN General Counsel ofNew York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Attorney for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation s/h/a Jacobi Medical Center, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and Colin D. Chafong Office of Legal Affairs - Claim & Litigation 26th 55 Water Street, FlOOT New York, New York 10041 Of Counsel: Gia DiCola Tel: (646) 694-6589 File No. 2013-000145 Due and timely service ishereby admitted. New York, N.Y , 201 . . . ............................................. ............................................................................... Esq. Attorney for.................................................................. - 9 - 8 of 8