Lawrence v. Sotudeh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawrence v. Sotudeh

5 A.D.3d 445, 772 N.Y.S.2d 590

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 445 (Lawrence v. Sotudeh) 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

Lawrence v. Sotudeh, 5 A.D.3d 445, 772 N.Y.S.2d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated December 10, 2002, which dismissed the complaint upon the plaintiffs failure to appear at a status conference as directed by a prior court order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

No appeal lies from an order made upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904 [2003]). The proper procedure would have been for the plaintiff to move to open her default and to vacate the order dated December 10, 2002, and if necessary, appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate (see Grober v Busigo, 133 AD2d 389 [1987]; Imor v Imor, 114 AD2d 552, 553 [1985]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, 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, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated December 10, 2002, which dismissed the complaint upon the plaintiffs failure to appear at a status conference as directed by a prior court order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

No appeal lies from an order made upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904 [2003]). The proper procedure would have been for the plaintiff to move to open her default and to vacate the order dated December 10, 2002, and if necessary, appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate (see Grober v Busigo, 133 AD2d 389 [1987]; Imor v Imor, 114 AD2d 552, 553 [1985]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 445, 772 N.Y.S.2d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-sotudeh-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack