Giglio v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giglio v. Jacobson

154 A.D.2d 437, 547 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 437 (Giglio v. Jacobson) 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

Giglio v. Jacobson, 154 A.D.2d 437, 547 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., predicated upon alleged dental malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated December 13, 1988, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore it to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion by granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar. The plaintiffs submitted a reasonable explanation for their conduct which led to the dismissal of the action and an affidavit of merit from a dentist establishing the existence of a meritorious claim (cf., Scopino v St. Joseph’s Hosp., 142 AD2d 569). Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Balletta and Rosenblatt, 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 personal injuries, etc., predicated upon alleged dental malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated December 13, 1988, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore it to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion by granting the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar. The plaintiffs submitted a reasonable explanation for their conduct which led to the dismissal of the action and an affidavit of merit from a dentist establishing the existence of a meritorious claim (cf., Scopino v St. Joseph’s Hosp., 142 AD2d 569). Lawrence, J. P., Rubin, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 437, 547 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giglio-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack