Iazzetta v. Vicenzi

243 A.D.2d 540, 663 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9858
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 540 (Iazzetta v. Vicenzi) 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
Iazzetta v. Vicenzi, 243 A.D.2d 540, 663 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated October 17, 1996, which denied their motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness filed by the plaintiff on or about June 20, 1996, and granted the plaintiffs cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered February 20, 1996, which dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404, and to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the plaintiffs cross motion is denied.

A case in the Supreme Court which is stricken from the calendar and not restored within one year thereafter, “shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute” (CPLR 3404). In the instant case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment which dismissed the instant complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404.

It is well settled that in order to vacate a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff must establish the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the non-moving party if the case is restored to the calendar (see, Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351; Hatcher v Cassanova, 180 AD2d 664; Hagelman v Sheridan, 150 AD2d 430). In a medical malpractice action, the affidavit of merit must be by a physician or other qualified expert, and state with specificity the expert’s observations as to procedures or treatments performed and the alleged deviations from the acceptable standards of medical care (see, Nepomniaschi v Goldstein, 182 AD2d 743; Wulster v Rubinstein, 126 AD2d 545; Friedberg v Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 AD2d 194). In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bivens v. Stearn
2019 NY Slip Op 3760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Butindaro v. Grinberg
57 A.D.3d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bollino v. Hitzig
34 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Williams v. D'Angelo
24 A.D.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
LoFredo v. CMC Occupational Health Services, P. C.
189 Misc. 2d 781 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bakmezian v. St. Luke's Hospital
280 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Lantner v. Brookdale Hospital
278 A.D.2d 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Yousian v. New York Medical Center Hospital of Queens
277 A.D.2d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Kinsler v. Iovino
277 A.D.2d 286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Gannon v. Lamm
274 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Forge Heating & Air Conditioning Corp.
273 A.D.2d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Moore v. Long Island College Hospital
273 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Lieber v. Vitelli
270 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Day v. Maimonides Medical Center
266 A.D.2d 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Pierre v. Steve & Slavo Management Corp.
266 A.D.2d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Morgano v. Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc.
259 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Harkin v. Ramirez
259 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Soto v. Ortiz
254 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Perez v. Astoria General Hospital, Inc.
251 A.D.2d 308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rivers v. Jamaica Water Supply Co.
250 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 540, 663 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iazzetta-v-vicenzi-nyappdiv-1997.