790 users online (83 members and 707 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 159
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Babylon/Massapequa vicinity
    Posts
    119

    Arrow NEW Appearance Date: 03/18/2014 & Decision

    http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/...012100SCIV.pdf


    Index Number: 033683/2012
    The following case which you have subscribed to in eTrack has been updated. Changes from the last update are shown in red and are annotated.

    Court: Suffolk Civil Supreme
    Index Number: 033683/2012
    Case Name: GILBERT, SHANNAN, ESTATE OF, vs. HACKET, CHARLES PETER, D.O.
    Case Type: Medical Malpractice
    Track: Complex
    Upstate RJI Number:
    Disposition Date:
    Date NOI Due:
    NOI Filed:
    Calendar Number:
    RJI Filed: 01/18/2013
    Jury Status:
    Justice Name: DANIEL MARTIN

    Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:
    RAY, MITEV & ASSOCIATES
    122 NO. COUNTRY RD, POB 5440
    MILLER PLACE, NY 11764
    Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
    Status: Active

    Attorney/Firm for Defendant:
    O'ROURKE & HANSEN, PLLC
    235 BROOKSITE DRIVE
    HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
    Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
    Status: Active

    Last Appearance:
    Appearance Date: 05/07/2013
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Motion
    Appearance Outcome: Fully Submitted
    Justice: DANIEL MARTIN
    Part: MOTION PART 9
    Comments:


    Future Appearances: --- Information updated
    Appearance Date: 03/18/2014 --- Information updated
    Appearance Time: --- Information updated
    On For: Supreme Initial (first time on) --- Information updated
    Appearance Outcome: --- Information updated
    Justice: DANIEL MARTIN --- Information updated
    Part: PRELIMINARY CONF PART 9 --- Information updated
    Comments: CTRM --- Information updated
    PER SFO 12/10/13 --- Information updated


    Older appearances may exist but are not shown.

    Motions: Motion Number: 1
    Date Filed: 01/16/2013
    Filed By: DEF
    Relief Sought: Dismissal
    Submit Date: 05/07/2013
    Answer Demanded: No
    Status: Decided: 10-DEC-13
    MOTION DECIDED

    Before Justice: MARTIN
    Decision: Short Form Order
    Order Signed Date: 12/10/2013


    Scanned Decisions: --- Information updated
    Motion Number: 100 --- Information updated
    Scanned On: 12/13/2013 --- Information updated
    <b><span style=font-family: Comic Sans MS>“I'm tough, I'm ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a witch with a B, okay.” 
― Madonna</span></b>

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by LISleuth View Post
    http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/...012100SCIV.pdf


    Index Number: 033683/2012
    The following case which you have subscribed to in eTrack has been updated. Changes from the last update are shown in red and are annotated.

    Court: Suffolk Civil Supreme
    Index Number: 033683/2012
    Case Name: GILBERT, SHANNAN, ESTATE OF, vs. HACKET, CHARLES PETER, D.O.
    Case Type: Medical Malpractice
    Track: Complex
    Upstate RJI Number:
    Disposition Date:
    Date NOI Due:
    NOI Filed:
    Calendar Number:
    RJI Filed: 01/18/2013
    Jury Status:
    Justice Name: DANIEL MARTIN

    Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff:
    RAY, MITEV & ASSOCIATES
    122 NO. COUNTRY RD, POB 5440
    MILLER PLACE, NY 11764
    Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
    Status: Active

    Attorney/Firm for Defendant:
    O'ROURKE & HANSEN, PLLC
    235 BROOKSITE DRIVE
    HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
    Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
    Status: Active

    Last Appearance:
    Appearance Date: 05/07/2013
    Appearance Time:
    On For: Motion
    Appearance Outcome: Fully Submitted
    Justice: DANIEL MARTIN
    Part: MOTION PART 9
    Comments:


    Future Appearances: --- Information updated
    Appearance Date: 03/18/2014 --- Information updated
    Appearance Time: --- Information updated
    On For: Supreme Initial (first time on) --- Information updated
    Appearance Outcome: --- Information updated
    Justice: DANIEL MARTIN --- Information updated
    Part: PRELIMINARY CONF PART 9 --- Information updated
    Comments: CTRM --- Information updated
    PER SFO 12/10/13 --- Information updated


    Older appearances may exist but are not shown.

    Motions: Motion Number: 1
    Date Filed: 01/16/2013
    Filed By: DEF
    Relief Sought: Dismissal
    Submit Date: 05/07/2013
    Answer Demanded: No
    Status: Decided: 10-DEC-13
    MOTION DECIDED

    Before Justice: MARTIN
    Decision: Short Form Order
    Order Signed Date: 12/10/2013


    Scanned Decisions: --- Information updated
    Motion Number: 100 --- Information updated
    Scanned On: 12/13/2013 --- Information updated
    Thanks for the update! Does that mean the judge didn't dismiss and it's beginning on March 18?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by sleuthinforfun View Post
    Thanks for the update! Does that mean the judge didn't dismiss and it's beginning on March 18?
    I just noticed the PDF and read it. There was one motion he was granted, and that was the gross negligence, I believe. The rest of his motions were denied and he has until 1/15 to answer.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by ps149 View Post
    Let's just say that the defense unintentionally did an excellent job proving that the doc has a long track record of telling lies and stretching the truth about himself for the sole purpose of making himself look like a hero. He also constantly injects himself into situations where he has no business just to also attempt to receive praise as a hero. As disturbing as these actions may be, they do not make him a killer. the defense did too good of a job proving that the doc makes up stories. So good of a job, that they created enough doubt to conclude that his words with Mari were most likely all lies and his claims to have treated SG also nothing but lies.

    Total Failure.
    This is a civil suit. There is a plaintiff (MG) and defendant (CPH). The lawsuit filed contains motions first to show cause (by the plaintiff). Before any answer to cause, CPH filed a motion to dismiss, which the plaintiff answered to the LEGAL reasons why it should move forward taking into account what CPH claimed were the reasons to dismiss. The lawsuit hasn't even gotten to the point that you're talking about. There is no "burden of proof", it is the "preponderance of evidence" in a civil medical neglect case. After reading the judge's decision, it's pretty clear that CPH's lawyer didn't do a great job giving a legal basis for dismissal.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Strong Island
    Posts
    467
    News 12-Judge: Dr. Peter Hackett can be held liable in the death of Shannan Gilbert

    Hope some can see this:

    http://longisland.news12.com/news/ju...bert-1.6641950

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by PickleChris View Post
    News 12-Judge: Dr. Peter Hackett can be held liable in the death of Shannan Gilbert

    Hope some can see this:

    http://longisland.news12.com/news/ju...bert-1.6641950
    I had fallen out of touch with this case with CPH and didn't even realize it was still going on until I heard this on News12. Could be pretty interesting... never had a good feeling about this guy and it seems that whenever he speaks, he just digs a deeper hole.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    I wonder if the 911 call will come into this suit? It might be CPH's only defense (unless she said his name or something alluding to a neighborhood Dr.).

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,358
    911 call could potentially put this all to rest.
    Copyright © LINative13 —All Rights Reserved— Any duplication of any portion of this post except on Websleuths.com without the express written permission of 2013 LINative13 shall be punishable to the full extent of the law.


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    I had to read it several times to make sure I wasn't getting the jist wrong. The beginning reads as if the judge's answer was directed at CPH's Motion to Dismiss, but that's not the case. MG's lawsuit had 15 claims. Claims 9-15 are dismissed. 5 and 6 were also dismissed because the claim states SG died on/about May 1, 2010, but the ME report has the DOD as when her body was found. The statute of limitations is a year for claims 5 and 6.

    When I first read it, it reads COMPLETELY different if it's answering the motion to dismiss.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by LINative13 View Post
    911 call could potentially put this all to rest.
    ...unless she said, "Forget it. I'm ok now. I'm with the neighborhood doc." Wouldn't THAT be a twist?!


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by sleuthinforfun View Post
    ...unless she said, "Forget it. I'm ok now. I'm with the neighborhood doc." Wouldn't THAT be a twist?!
    Want to hear a twist? How about the CPH rumors are about as valid as the aquarium guy rumors.
    Copyright © LINative13 —All Rights Reserved— Any duplication of any portion of this post except on Websleuths.com without the express written permission of 2013 LINative13 shall be punishable to the full extent of the law.


  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6
    Hope we can hear sg 911 call

    Sent from my NB07 using Tapatalk

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by LINative13 View Post
    Want to hear a twist? How about the CPH rumors are about as valid as the aquarium guy rumors.
    How are phone calls backed by evidence with phone records coupled with an admission by the accused that he was factually the person who spoke on the phone with MG "rumors"? The content of the call (that he treated SG in his home on May 1, 2010) has been consistently described by MG, but there are a couple (few?) versions (including in writing with his signature using his fax number) descriptions from CPH. Where is rumor in that?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by sleuthinforfun View Post
    How are phone calls backed by evidence with phone records coupled with an admission by the accused that he was factually the person who spoke on the phone with MG "rumors"? The content of the call (that he treated SG in his home on May 1, 2010) has been consistently described by MG, but there are a couple (few?) versions (including in writing with his signature using his fax number) descriptions from CPH. Where is rumor in that?
    At this point I don't think they would have gotten into any evidence. They are just filing motions for now. We don't really know what evidence there is, or if there is any at all.

    At best as far as I can see the only thing they will have is recollections from memory of things that happened a long time ago. It is easy for people to have gotten dates, times and details wrong and mixed up. There probably is no evidence that he saw her or treated her (which would be required to find culpability for wrongful death), so I doubt the lawsuit can succeed beyond the nuisance factor.

    Under normal circumstances LE would have been interviewing people soon after the event (if she had been found a few days after she disappeared), so that would serve as a reference point for facts. But, they would only have really paid serious attention to SGs case when they found the other prostitutes bodies along the road, and that was much later. By then the accuracy of everyone's memories would be questionable. It is entirely possible that both sides are talking about the same event, just basing the actual dates on what phone records they had on hand.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,358
    One fact that sticks in my mind is fluke saying where the body would be found (in writing) months before it was.

    I think the real killers will win this round. Lack of police work, lack of forensic evidence, dumping the women in an area where Babylonians are content with the killers disappearing or getting caught equally, some distracting self serving Internet BS...yup, the killers win.
    Last edited by LINative13; 12-30-2013 at 01:38 AM.
    Copyright © LINative13 —All Rights Reserved— Any duplication of any portion of this post except on Websleuths.com without the express written permission of 2013 LINative13 shall be punishable to the full extent of the law.


Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast