Berland v. Fine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berland v. Fine

63 A.D.2d 642, 404 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505

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

DecidedMay 1, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 642 (Berland v. Fine) 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

Berland v. Fine, 63 A.D.2d 642, 404 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 23, 1977, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint (see CPLR 3012, subd [b]). Order reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In the light of the delay of more than 30 months in complying with defendant-appellant’s demand for the service of a complaint, and the inadequate excuse offered, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 23, 1977, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint (see CPLR 3012, subd [b]). Order reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In the light of the delay of more than 30 months in complying with defendant-appellant’s demand for the service of a complaint, and the inadequate excuse offered, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 642, 404 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berland-v-fine-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack