De Francesco v. Pelham Bay General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Francesco v. Pelham Bay General Hospital

44 A.D.2d 660, 354 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317

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

DecidedApril 9, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 660 (De Francesco v. Pelham Bay General Hospital) 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

De Francesco v. Pelham Bay General Hospital, 44 A.D.2d 660, 354 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 5, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, and motion denied. Appellants shall recover of respondents one bill of $40 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff was hospitalized and operated on in 1965. She started this action for malpractice in 1967. During the course of the litigation there were ■ three orders of preclusion entered due to plaintiff’s failure to serve proper bills of particulars and supplemental bills. The actión was not placed on the calendar until a 45-day notice was served. A certificate of readiness was filed. This motion sought leave to file an amended complaint on a different theory of negligence, with a substantial increase in the ad damnum clause, relief from the orders of preclusion and an examination of the- defendants. Omitting consideration that one Special Term does not vacate an order of another Special Term, there were no good grounds shown for vacating the orders of preclusion (Williams v. Mallinckrodt Chem. Works, 42 A D 2d 1044; Abbinanti v. Baisch, 41 A D 2d 693). Laches precluded the amendment of- the complaint and no valid reason was given for an examination at this stage of the proceedings. The sweeping relief granted was an abuse of discretion. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Steuer, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered October 5, 1973, unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, and motion denied. Appellants shall recover of respondents one bill of $40 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff was hospitalized and operated on in 1965. She started this action for malpractice in 1967. During the course of the litigation there were ■ three orders of preclusion entered due to plaintiff’s failure to serve proper bills of particulars and supplemental bills. The actión was not placed on the calendar until a 45-day notice was served. A certificate of readiness was filed. This motion sought leave to file an amended complaint on a different theory of negligence, with a substantial increase in the ad damnum clause, relief from the orders of preclusion and an examination of the- defendants. Omitting consideration that one Special Term does not vacate an order of another Special Term, there were no good grounds shown for vacating the orders of preclusion (Williams v. Mallinckrodt Chem. Works, 42 A D 2d 1044; Abbinanti v. Baisch, 41 A D 2d 693). Laches precluded the amendment of- the complaint and no valid reason was given for an examination at this stage of the proceedings. The sweeping relief granted was an abuse of discretion. Concur—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Steuer, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 660, 354 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-francesco-v-pelham-bay-general-hospital-nyappdiv-1974.