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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital. Read the opinion of the Court — 259 A.D.2d 455 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2001·Published

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.

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

280 A.D.2d 503 (Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related