Eden v. Leone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eden v. Leone

280 A.D.2d 578, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 578 (Eden v. Leone) 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

Eden v. Leone, 280 A.D.2d 578, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Vincent J. Leone appeals and the defendants Gustave J. Pogo and North Shore University Hospital-Cornell University Medical Colleges separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered December 1, 1999, which denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs demonstrated a justifiable excuse for their delay in responding to a 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions (see, Amy L. M. v Board of Educ., 199 AD2d 477; Christie v Mineola Ophthalmology Assocs., 271 AD2d 469). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Smith, 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, etc., the defendant Vincent J. Leone appeals and the defendants Gustave J. Pogo and North Shore University Hospital-Cornell University Medical Colleges separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered December 1, 1999, which denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs demonstrated a justifiable excuse for their delay in responding to a 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions (see, Amy L. M. v Board of Educ., 199 AD2d 477; Christie v Mineola Ophthalmology Assocs., 271 AD2d 469). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 578, 720 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eden-v-leone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack