Kuttemperoor v. Shah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kuttemperoor v. Shah

280 A.D.2d 273, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 273 (Kuttemperoor v. Shah) 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

Kuttemperoor v. Shah, 280 A.D.2d 273, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered September 3, 1999, dismissing the action pursuant to an order which, in an action for dental malpractice, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 6, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to reargue the dismissal of the action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The action, commenced in 1994, was properly dismissed for plaintiffs failure to explain how defendant committed malpractice and why her various unspecified physical and psychological ailments have prevented her prosecution of the action (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered September 3, 1999, dismissing the action pursuant to an order which, in an action for dental malpractice, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 6, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to reargue the dismissal of the action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The action, commenced in 1994, was properly dismissed for plaintiffs failure to explain how defendant committed malpractice and why her various unspecified physical and psychological ailments have prevented her prosecution of the action (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 273, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuttemperoor-v-shah-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack