Hattenrath v. Booth Memorial Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hattenrath v. Booth Memorial Medical Center

211 A.D.2d 759, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 759 (Hattenrath v. Booth Memorial Medical Center) 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

Hattenrath v. Booth Memorial Medical Center, 211 A.D.2d 759, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Booth Memorial Medical Center, Nancy L. Chan Amigo, J. Maresca, L. Higgins, Paratibha Ankola, and John Tasneem appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated May 21, 1992, which, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion to renew, denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a conditional order of preclusion dated October 17, 1990, on condition that the plaintiffs’ attorney personally pay the appellants the sum of $2,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion. Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Booth Memorial Medical Center, Nancy L. Chan Amigo, J. Maresca, L. Higgins, Paratibha Ankola, and John Tasneem appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated May 21, 1992, which, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion to renew, denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a conditional order of preclusion dated October 17, 1990, on condition that the plaintiffs’ attorney personally pay the appellants the sum of $2,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion. Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 759, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hattenrath-v-booth-memorial-medical-center-nyappdiv-1995.