Emmett v. St. Peter's Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emmett v. St. Peter's Hospital

293 A.D.2d 446, 739 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3376

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

DecidedApril 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 446 (Emmett v. St. Peter's 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

Emmett v. St. Peter's Hospital, 293 A.D.2d 446, 739 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Nicolai, J.), dated June 15, 2001, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior order of the [447]*447same court (Marlow, J.), dated October 19, 2000, inter alia, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon their failure to proceed on the scheduled trial date.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for an adjournment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint upon their refusal to proceed on the scheduled trial date (see Gorbatov v Gardens 75th St. Owners Corp., 283 AD2d 551; Ortolani v Town of Hempstead, 256 AD2d 451; see also Harper v Han Chang, 267 AD2d 1011). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Nicolai, J.), dated June 15, 2001, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior order of the [447]*447same court (Marlow, J.), dated October 19, 2000, inter alia, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon their failure to proceed on the scheduled trial date.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for an adjournment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint upon their refusal to proceed on the scheduled trial date (see Gorbatov v Gardens 75th St. Owners Corp., 283 AD2d 551; Ortolani v Town of Hempstead, 256 AD2d 451; see also Harper v Han Chang, 267 AD2d 1011). Altman, J.P., Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 446, 739 N.Y.S.2d 647, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmett-v-st-peters-hospital-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack