Hernandez v. St. Barnabas Hospital

89 A.D.3d 457, 931 N.Y.2d 875
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Supreme Court correctly determined that this action is not [458]*458barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action was dismissed as a result of plaintiffs counsel’s failure to attend a calendar call (see 22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). Accordingly, the dismissal was not on the merits and thus does not have res judicata effect (Espinoza v Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 AD3d 326, 328 [2006]; Kalisch v Maple Trade Fin. Corp., 35 AD3d 291 [2006]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Hernandez v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 89 A.D.3d 457, 931 N.Y.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 457 (Hernandez v. St. Barnabas Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Knobel v. Demba Wei, LLP
2020 NY Slip Op 3193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.
91 A.D.3d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)