Kreiner v. Mather Memorial Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kreiner v. Mather Memorial Hospital

14 A.D.3d 657, 788 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 768

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 657 (Kreiner v. Mather Memorial 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

Kreiner v. Mather Memorial Hospital, 14 A.D.3d 657, 788 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J), dated February 25, 2004, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is restored to the trial calendar.

The plaintiff satisfied the requirements on a motion to restore an action to the trial calendar, including demonstrating a meritorious cause of action and that his excuse of law office failure was reasonable under the circumstances (see Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351 [1994]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, 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, Suffolk County (Molia, J), dated February 25, 2004, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is restored to the trial calendar.

The plaintiff satisfied the requirements on a motion to restore an action to the trial calendar, including demonstrating a meritorious cause of action and that his excuse of law office failure was reasonable under the circumstances (see Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351 [1994]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 657, 788 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreiner-v-mather-memorial-hospital-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack