Asaro v. Gilpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asaro v. Gilpin

289 A.D.2d 429, 735 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12966

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 429 (Asaro v. Gilpin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asaro v. Gilpin, 289 A.D.2d 429, 735 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 14, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to commencing the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendants’ demand for an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) before commencing the action (see, Andujar v New York City Hous. Auth., 226 AD2d 657; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 191 AD2d 606; Restivo v Village of Lynbrook, 84 AD2d 831; CPLR 205 [a]; [430]*430Lehman Bros. v Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 92 NY2d 1014, 1016; see also, Joseph Francese, Inc. v Enlarged City School Dist., 95 NY2d 59, 64-65). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 14, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to commencing the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendants’ demand for an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) before commencing the action (see, Andujar v New York City Hous. Auth., 226 AD2d 657; Bailey v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 191 AD2d 606; Restivo v Village of Lynbrook, 84 AD2d 831; CPLR 205 [a]; [430]*430Lehman Bros. v Hughes Hubbard & Reed, 92 NY2d 1014, 1016; see also, Joseph Francese, Inc. v Enlarged City School Dist., 95 NY2d 59, 64-65). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 429, 735 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asaro-v-gilpin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack