Barbera v. DeRostaing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barbera v. DeRostaing

140 A.D.2d 660, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6126

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 31, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In view of the plaintiffs’ failure to provide any reasonable excuse for their extensive delay in serving their bill of particulars, their failure to comply with the court’s conditional order of preclusion, and their failure to submit an affidavit of merit, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted unconditionally and the complaint dismissed (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014; Bailey v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 91 AD2d 967, affd 59 NY2d 748). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In view of the plaintiffs’ failure to provide any reasonable excuse for their extensive delay in serving their bill of particulars, their failure to comply with the court’s conditional order of preclusion, and their failure to submit an affidavit of merit, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted unconditionally and the complaint dismissed (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014; Bailey v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 91 AD2d 967, affd 59 NY2d 748). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Barbera v. DeRostaing, 140 A.D.2d 660, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

140 A.D.2d 660 (Barbera v. DeRostaing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related