Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital

280 A.D.2d 503, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 503 (Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital) 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

Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital, 280 A.D.2d 503, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated February 2, 2000, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated January 6, 1999, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiffs’ default in appearing at a pretrial conference.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their action. The plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a meritorious cause- of action or a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422; Manigat v Louis, 262 AD2d 289; Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 243 AD2d 540; Miller v City of New York, 242 AD2d 370). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated February 2, 2000, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated January 6, 1999, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiffs’ default in appearing at a pretrial conference.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their action. The plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a meritorious cause- of action or a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422; Manigat v Louis, 262 AD2d 289; Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 243 AD2d 540; Miller v City of New York, 242 AD2d 370). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 503, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakmezian-v-st-lukes-hospital-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack