Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hospital

288 A.D.2d 252, 732 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11008
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 252 (Di Simone v. Good Samaritan 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
Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 288 A.D.2d 252, 732 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Good Samaritan Hospital and Harvey Manes, M.D., P. C., separately appeal, as limited by their [253]*253briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), dated September 26, 2000, as denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Having been served with 90-day notices pursuant to CPLR 3216, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to comply with the notices by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notices or extend the 90-day period (see, Hayden v Jones, 244 AD2d 316). The plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499; Gourdet v Hershfeld, 277 AD2d 422). The plaintiff did not satisfy either requirement and, therefore, the appellants’ motions should have been granted. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Stuckey v. Westchester County Department of Transportation
298 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 252, 732 N.Y.S.2d 592, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-simone-v-good-samaritan-hospital-nyappdiv-2001.