Conklin v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conklin v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

288 A.D.2d 249, 732 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 249 (Conklin v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Conklin v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 288 A.D.2d 249, 732 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

[250]*250Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In light of this Court’s opinion and order in Basetti v Nour (287 AD2d 126), the plaintiffs’ timely motion to restore this consolidated action to the trial calendar was properly granted (see also, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

[250]*250Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In light of this Court’s opinion and order in Basetti v Nour (287 AD2d 126), the plaintiffs’ timely motion to restore this consolidated action to the trial calendar was properly granted (see also, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 249, 732 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack