Jiminez v. St. John's Riverside Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jiminez v. St. John's Riverside Hospital

161 A.D.2d 497

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

DecidedMay 24, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 497 (Jiminez v. St. John's Riverside Hospital) 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

Jiminez v. St. John's Riverside Hospital, 161 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sondra Miller, J.), entered March 31, 1989, which, on a motion by defendants Florio, Gomez and Brittis pursuant to CPLR 2221, withdrew its prior decision vacating plaintiffs’ default without sanctions, and vacated plaintiffs’ default with money sanctions of $1,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs were required to show a reasonable excuse for not serving a complaint and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. The determination that supervising counsel’s alcohol problem constituted a reasonable excuse for the default was within the IAS court’s sound discretion (see, Sanders & Assocs. v Hague Dev. Corp., 100 AD2d 964, 965). Merit was shown by a medical affidavit that included "a sufficient, though hardly overwhelming, demonstration” (Santana v Prospect Hosp., 84 AD2d 714, 715). Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sondra Miller, J.), entered March 31, 1989, which, on a motion by defendants Florio, Gomez and Brittis pursuant to CPLR 2221, withdrew its prior decision vacating plaintiffs’ default without sanctions, and vacated plaintiffs’ default with money sanctions of $1,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs were required to show a reasonable excuse for not serving a complaint and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. The determination that supervising counsel’s alcohol problem constituted a reasonable excuse for the default was within the IAS court’s sound discretion (see, Sanders & Assocs. v Hague Dev. Corp., 100 AD2d 964, 965). Merit was shown by a medical affidavit that included "a sufficient, though hardly overwhelming, demonstration” (Santana v Prospect Hosp., 84 AD2d 714, 715). Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiminez-v-st-johns-riverside-hospital-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack