Christie v. Mineola Ophthalmology Associates, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christie v. Mineola Ophthalmology Associates, P. C.

271 A.D.2d 469, 706 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4046

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 469 (Christie v. Mineola Ophthalmology Associates, P. C.) 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

Christie v. Mineola Ophthalmology Associates, P. C., 271 A.D.2d 469, 706 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 4, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to vacate an order of the same court dated May 28, 1999, which, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[470]*470The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion and granting the plaintiffs cross motion (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504; Barrett v Littles, 260 AD2d 418). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated October 4, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to vacate an order of the same court dated May 28, 1999, which, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[470]*470The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion and granting the plaintiffs cross motion (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504; Barrett v Littles, 260 AD2d 418). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 469, 706 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christie-v-mineola-ophthalmology-associates-p-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack