De Rienzo v. Zweig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Rienzo v. Zweig

251 A.D.2d 366, 674 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6568

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 366 (De Rienzo v. Zweig) 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 Rienzo v. Zweig, 251 A.D.2d 366, 674 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which, upon determining that she engaged in misconduct and granting an oral application by the defendant to dismiss her complaint, dismissed her complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the application is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The record amply supports the court’s determination that the plaintiff engaged in deliberate misconduct by approaching jurors in a courthouse restroom during a recess in the trial and making an improper appeal to their sympathy. Nevertheless, while the imposition of an appropriate sanction may have been warranted (see generally, Judiciary Law §§ 750, 753), the dismissal of the complaint under these circumstances was not authorized (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 7; see generally, Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the complaint reinstated. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered January 14, 1997, which, upon determining that she engaged in misconduct and granting an oral application by the defendant to dismiss her complaint, dismissed her complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the application is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The record amply supports the court’s determination that the plaintiff engaged in deliberate misconduct by approaching jurors in a courthouse restroom during a recess in the trial and making an improper appeal to their sympathy. Nevertheless, while the imposition of an appropriate sanction may have been warranted (see generally, Judiciary Law §§ 750, 753), the dismissal of the complaint under these circumstances was not authorized (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 7; see generally, Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the complaint reinstated. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 366, 674 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-rienzo-v-zweig-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack