Henegar v. Freudenheim

Plaintiffs’ motion is for an order pursuant to CPLB 3025 (subd. [b]) granting them leave to serve a second amended complaint and for an order pursuant to CPLB 2221 for leave to reargue that part of the order of this court dated December 15, 1971, which struck the allegations of plaintiffs’ amended verified hill of particulars concerning “lack of informed consent.”

That part of plaintiffs’ motion which seeks leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, the court adheres to its decision dated November 4, 1971.

*277The doctrine of no “ informed consent ’ ’ which plaintiffs seek to introduce into…