Bailey v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bailey v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2672

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 606 (Bailey v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Bailey v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated May 24, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s first two requests to reschedule an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h were granted by the defendant; her third request was denied. Since the plaintiff took no action to reschedule the examination in the nearly two years and three months after the denial, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (see, Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389, affd 61 NY2d 847). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated May 24, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s first two requests to reschedule an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h were granted by the defendant; her third request was denied. Since the plaintiff took no action to reschedule the examination in the nearly two years and three months after the denial, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (see, Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389, affd 61 NY2d 847). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack