Johnson v. Trivedi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Trivedi

41 A.D.3d 1259, 836 N.Y.S.2d 474

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

DecidedJune 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 1259 (Johnson v. Trivedi) 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

Johnson v. Trivedi, 41 A.D.3d 1259, 836 N.Y.S.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[1260]*1260Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered February 16, 2006 in a medical malpractice action. The order denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff died intestate three months following the commencement of this medical malpractice action and, approximately two years after her death, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to substitute her estate as the proper party plaintiff within a reasonable time (see CPLR 1015 [a]; 1021). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motions “in view of the absence of any showing that the delay prejudiced the defendant [s]. . . and the strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits” (Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610 [1987]; see Macomber v Cipollina, 226 AD2d 435, 437 [1996]; see also Lewis v Kessler, 12 AD3d 421 [2004]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

[1260]*1260Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered February 16, 2006 in a medical malpractice action. The order denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff died intestate three months following the commencement of this medical malpractice action and, approximately two years after her death, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to substitute her estate as the proper party plaintiff within a reasonable time (see CPLR 1015 [a]; 1021). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motions “in view of the absence of any showing that the delay prejudiced the defendant [s]. . . and the strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits” (Egrini v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 133 AD2d 610 [1987]; see Macomber v Cipollina, 226 AD2d 435, 437 [1996]; see also Lewis v Kessler, 12 AD3d 421 [2004]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 1259, 836 N.Y.S.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-trivedi-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack