Jankowicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jankowicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

284 A.D.2d 502, 726 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6762

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 502 (Jankowicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Jankowicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 284 A.D.2d 502, 726 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated March 15, 2000, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

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

This action was removed from the trial calendar to allow the plaintiff to move for leave to serve an amended and supplemental verified bill of particulars. Apparently, the action was thereafter restored to the trial calendar, because, by order dated January 6, 1997, the Supreme Court, inter alia, stayed the trial of the action for 60 days to allow the defendant, among other things, an additional physical examination. Evidently, [503]*503through no fault of the plaintiff, the defendant’s doctor did not conduct the examination until June 21, 1999. These circumstances indicate that the litigation was not abandoned by the plaintiff. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar (see, Nicolich v Fitzgerald, 259 AD2d 741). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated March 15, 2000, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

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

This action was removed from the trial calendar to allow the plaintiff to move for leave to serve an amended and supplemental verified bill of particulars. Apparently, the action was thereafter restored to the trial calendar, because, by order dated January 6, 1997, the Supreme Court, inter alia, stayed the trial of the action for 60 days to allow the defendant, among other things, an additional physical examination. Evidently, [503]*503through no fault of the plaintiff, the defendant’s doctor did not conduct the examination until June 21, 1999. These circumstances indicate that the litigation was not abandoned by the plaintiff. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar (see, Nicolich v Fitzgerald, 259 AD2d 741). O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 502, 726 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jankowicz-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack