Gross v. Kurk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gross v. Kurk

250 A.D.2d 810, 672 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6024

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to-recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 24, 1997, which, upon (1) a decision and order of this Court dated February 20, 1996, which, upon modifying an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 9, 1994, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 8303-a, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 8, 1997, directing the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, was in favor of the defendant and against her in the principal sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 8303-a solely against the plaintiff (see, CPLR 8303-a [b]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 24, 1997, which, upon (1) a decision and order of this Court dated February 20, 1996, which, upon modifying an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 9, 1994, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 8303-a, and (2) an order of the same court dated January 8, 1997, directing the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, was in favor of the defendant and against her in the principal sum of $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 8303-a solely against the plaintiff (see, CPLR 8303-a [b]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Gross v. Kurk, 250 A.D.2d 810, 672 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 810 (Gross v. Kurk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related