Harper v. Jamaica Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harper v. Jamaica Hospital

239 A.D.2d 388, 658 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5129

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

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 388 (Harper v. Jamaica Hospital) 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

Harper v. Jamaica Hospital, 239 A.D.2d 388, 658 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Abraham Appleton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 7, 1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of establishing an expeditious discovery schedule.

[389]*389The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) for a voluntary discontinuance of an action is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383; Conte v Getty Petroleum Corp., 202 AD2d 621, 622; Great W. Bank v Terio, 200 AD2d 608, 609). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery (see, Felice v St. Agnes Hosp., 65 AD2d 388, 395-397).

However, in view of the length of time that this action has been pending, all discovery should be concluded expeditiously. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, 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 defendant Abraham Appleton appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated June 7, 1996, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of establishing an expeditious discovery schedule.

[389]*389The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) for a voluntary discontinuance of an action is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383; Conte v Getty Petroleum Corp., 202 AD2d 621, 622; Great W. Bank v Terio, 200 AD2d 608, 609). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him without prejudice to renewal following the completion of discovery (see, Felice v St. Agnes Hosp., 65 AD2d 388, 395-397).

However, in view of the length of time that this action has been pending, all discovery should be concluded expeditiously. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 388, 658 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-jamaica-hospital-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack