Dominique v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominique v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center

22 A.D.3d 789, 803 N.Y.S.2d 176

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Chu Fu Wang appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated July 15, 2004, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Chu Fu Wang (hereinafter Wang) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wang did not clearly demonstrate that the plaintiffs failure to provide any discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see CPLR 3126; Pascarelli v City of New York, 16 AD3d 472 [2005]; Ferrarese v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 401 [2000]). Courts do not possess the power to dismiss an action for general delay unless the plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand for a note of issue (see CPLR 3216; Chase v Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228 [1995]; O’Connell v City Wide Auto Leasing, 6 AD3d 682 [2004]; Roth v Black Star Publ. Co., 302 AD2d 442 [2003]). Here, no such 90-day demand was served. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, 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 defendant Chu Fu Wang appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated July 15, 2004, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Chu Fu Wang (hereinafter Wang) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wang did not clearly demonstrate that the plaintiffs failure to provide any discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see CPLR 3126; Pascarelli v City of New York, 16 AD3d 472 [2005]; Ferrarese v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 401 [2000]). Courts do not possess the power to dismiss an action for general delay unless the plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand for a note of issue (see CPLR 3216; Chase v Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228 [1995]; O’Connell v City Wide Auto Leasing, 6 AD3d 682 [2004]; Roth v Black Star Publ. Co., 302 AD2d 442 [2003]). Here, no such 90-day demand was served. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Dominique v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center, 22 A.D.3d 789, 803 N.Y.S.2d 176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 789 (Dominique v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related