Hernandez v. Stolzenberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Stolzenberg

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 20, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50944(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Hernandez v. Stolzenberg (Hernandez v. Stolzenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez v. Stolzenberg, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Maritza Hernandez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Sol S. Stolzenberg, D.M.D. d/b/a Toothsavers, s/h/a Toothsavers d/b/a Universal Dental Center, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered July 30, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in opposing defendant's prior motion for summary judgment and, upon vacatur, permitted plaintiff to withdraw her complaint, "without prejudice."

Per Curiam.

Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered July 30, 2015, affirmed.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in opposing defendant's summary judgment motion. The default was the result of plaintiff's misapprehension that the underlying small claims action had been effectively discontinued, so that she could pursue a claim against defendant in Supreme Court (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832 [2009]). In addition, assuming that defendant's summary judgment motion was properly entertained in small claims court (see Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57, 58 [1995]), plaintiff established a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion, through the affidavit of her dental expert (see Barton v Executive Health Examiners, 277 AD2d 27, 28 [2000]). In the circumstances, and in view of the general policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits (see DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v Seck, 82 AD3d 581, 582 [2011]), we cannot say that Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the dismissal.

It is also within a court's discretion to allow plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the action so that she could pursue a claim against defendant for the same relief in another forum (see Parraguirre v 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 AD3d 793, 794 [2007]). As there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant, we do not disturb the court's discretionary determination (see Citibank v Nagrotsky, 239 AD2d 456, 457 [1997]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 20, 2016

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

Maritza Hernandez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Sol S. Stolzenberg, D.M.D. d/b/a Toothsavers, s/h/a Toothsavers d/b/a Universal Dental Center, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered July 30, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in opposing defendant's prior motion for summary judgment and, upon vacatur, permitted plaintiff to withdraw her complaint, "without prejudice."

Per Curiam.

Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered July 30, 2015, affirmed.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in opposing defendant's summary judgment motion. The default was the result of plaintiff's misapprehension that the underlying small claims action had been effectively discontinued, so that she could pursue a claim against defendant in Supreme Court (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832 [2009]). In addition, assuming that defendant's summary judgment motion was properly entertained in small claims court (see Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57, 58 [1995]), plaintiff established a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion, through the affidavit of her dental expert (see Barton v Executive Health Examiners, 277 AD2d 27, 28 [2000]). In the circumstances, and in view of the general policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits (see DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co. v Seck, 82 AD3d 581, 582 [2011]), we cannot say that Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the dismissal.

It is also within a court's discretion to allow plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue the action so that she could pursue a claim against defendant for the same relief in another forum (see Parraguirre v 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 AD3d 793, 794 [2007]). As there was no showing of prejudice to the defendant, we do not disturb the court's discretionary determination (see Citibank v Nagrotsky, 239 AD2d 456, 457 [1997]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 20, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hernandez v. Stolzenberg, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-stolzenberg-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack