Essner v. Keavy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Essner v. Keavy

104 A.D.2d 632, 480 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20058

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 632 (Essner v. Keavy) 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

Essner v. Keavy, 104 A.D.2d 632, 480 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.), entered July 19,1983, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to timely serve a complaint, which was granted in a prior order of the same court, entered March 25, 1983, and (2) upon reargument, vacated that order and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

Order entered July 19,1983, modified, on the law, by deleting the provision which vacated the order entered March 25, 1983, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In its order entered July 19,1983, Special Term properly held that the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint was the result of law office failure. However, in order to justify vacating the default, plaintiff must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action by submitting an affidavit containing evidentiary facts [633]*633by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim (Vernon v Nassau County Med. Center, 102 AD2d 852; Hatcher v City of New York, 99 AD2d 481). In light of the plaintiff’s failure to submit such an affidavit, Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh, J.), entered July 19,1983, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to timely serve a complaint, which was granted in a prior order of the same court, entered March 25, 1983, and (2) upon reargument, vacated that order and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

Order entered July 19,1983, modified, on the law, by deleting the provision which vacated the order entered March 25, 1983, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In its order entered July 19,1983, Special Term properly held that the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint was the result of law office failure. However, in order to justify vacating the default, plaintiff must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action by submitting an affidavit containing evidentiary facts [633]*633by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim (Vernon v Nassau County Med. Center, 102 AD2d 852; Hatcher v City of New York, 99 AD2d 481). In light of the plaintiff’s failure to submit such an affidavit, Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 632, 480 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essner-v-keavy-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack