Evans v. Kringstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Kringstein

225 A.D.2d 582, 639 N.Y.2d 738, 639 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 582 (Evans v. Kringstein) 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

Evans v. Kringstein, 225 A.D.2d 582, 639 N.Y.2d 738, 639 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

A plaintiff who seeks to restore a case to the trial calendar within a year following its being stricken therefrom must bear the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Barton v Jablon, 181 AD2d 755; see also, Public Adm’r of County of N. Y. v Heil Corp., 126 AD2d 533). The plaintiff has failed to establish this.

The affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert is insufficient to establish merit since this affidavit does not "make specific observations as to the procedures or treatments performed or the alleged improprieties therein” (Nepomniaschi v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 743, 744). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

A plaintiff who seeks to restore a case to the trial calendar within a year following its being stricken therefrom must bear the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Barton v Jablon, 181 AD2d 755; see also, Public Adm’r of County of N. Y. v Heil Corp., 126 AD2d 533). The plaintiff has failed to establish this.

The affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert is insufficient to establish merit since this affidavit does not "make specific observations as to the procedures or treatments performed or the alleged improprieties therein” (Nepomniaschi v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 743, 744). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 582, 639 N.Y.2d 738, 639 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-kringstein-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack