David v. Interfaith Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David v. Interfaith Medical Center

295 A.D.2d 557, 745 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6705

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 557 (David v. Interfaith Medical Center) 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

David v. Interfaith Medical Center, 295 A.D.2d 557, 745 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated May 25, 2001, which denied her motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion to restore is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

It is now well established that CPLR 3404 should be reserved strictly for cases that have reached the trial calendar (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199). Since the instant action was never placed on the trial calendar when it was marked “off” and subsequently dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to “restore” (see Zanani v Savad, 286 AD2d 386, 387; Murray v Smith Corp., 286 AD2d 377; Miller v Duffy, 284 AD2d 380; Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v Campus Assoc., 283 AD2d 608). Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, 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 and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated May 25, 2001, which denied her motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion to restore is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

It is now well established that CPLR 3404 should be reserved strictly for cases that have reached the trial calendar (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199). Since the instant action was never placed on the trial calendar when it was marked “off” and subsequently dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to “restore” (see Zanani v Savad, 286 AD2d 386, 387; Murray v Smith Corp., 286 AD2d 377; Miller v Duffy, 284 AD2d 380; Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v Campus Assoc., 283 AD2d 608). Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 557, 745 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-interfaith-medical-center-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack