Kramer v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kramer v. Rosenthal

204 A.D.2d 406, 614 N.Y.S.2d 185

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 406 (Kramer v. Rosenthal) 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

Kramer v. Rosenthal, 204 A.D.2d 406, 614 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Jerome Rosenthal appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 10, 1992, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying [407]*407the appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand (see, Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 189 AD2d 811). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 defendant Jerome Rosenthal appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 10, 1992, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying [407]*407the appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand (see, Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 189 AD2d 811). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 406, 614 N.Y.S.2d 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-rosenthal-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack