Ettehadieh v. Dolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ettehadieh v. Dolan

283 A.D.2d 605, 725 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 605 (Ettehadieh v. Dolan) 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

Ettehadieh v. Dolan, 283 A.D.2d 605, 725 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event the case is restored to the trial calendar (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; Friedman v Friedman, 272 AD2d 293; Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp., 269 AD2d 507; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389; Etter v County of Nassau, 261 AD2d 571). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs submissions, which included a physician’s affidavit attesting to the merit of her malpractice claim, sufficiently demonstrated [606]*606these elements. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar (see, Friedman v Friedman, supra; Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp., supra; Rifkin v Herman, supra; Etter v County of Nassau, supra). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated December 14, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event the case is restored to the trial calendar (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; Friedman v Friedman, 272 AD2d 293; Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp., 269 AD2d 507; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389; Etter v County of Nassau, 261 AD2d 571). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiffs submissions, which included a physician’s affidavit attesting to the merit of her malpractice claim, sufficiently demonstrated [606]*606these elements. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar (see, Friedman v Friedman, supra; Nisselson v Hercules Constr. Corp., supra; Rifkin v Herman, supra; Etter v County of Nassau, supra). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 605, 725 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ettehadieh-v-dolan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack