Davis v. Maldonado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Maldonado

307 A.D.2d 948, 763 N.Y.S.2d 469

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

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 948 (Davis v. Maldonado) 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

Davis v. Maldonado, 307 A.D.2d 948, 763 N.Y.S.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendants Jose Maldonado and St. Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated May 24, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action. A case dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 may be restored only if the plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default in failing to appear at the conference and a meritorious cause of action (see Syed v Fedor, 296 AD2d 399 [2002]). Since the plaintiff demonstrated both, the motion was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Peuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendants Jose Maldonado and St. Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated May 24, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action. A case dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 may be restored only if the plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default in failing to appear at the conference and a meritorious cause of action (see Syed v Fedor, 296 AD2d 399 [2002]). Since the plaintiff demonstrated both, the motion was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Peuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 948, 763 N.Y.S.2d 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-maldonado-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack