Manrique v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manrique v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital

40 A.D.3d 270, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391

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

DecidedMay 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 270 (Manrique v. New York-Presbyterian 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

Manrique v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital, 40 A.D.3d 270, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 14, 2005, which granted defendant hospital’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed because of plaintiffs failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the court’s numerous orders directing her to serve bills of particulars identifying the alleged malpractice or negligence of each defendant separately (CPLR 3042 [d]; 3126; see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Siegman v Rosen, 270 AD2d 14, 15 [2000]). Plaintiff’s eventual discontinuance of the action as against all of the defendants except the hospital, not fully effectuated until after the hospital made the instant motion to dismiss, does not render the disobedience excusable or academic. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 14, 2005, which granted defendant hospital’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed because of plaintiffs failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the court’s numerous orders directing her to serve bills of particulars identifying the alleged malpractice or negligence of each defendant separately (CPLR 3042 [d]; 3126; see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]; Siegman v Rosen, 270 AD2d 14, 15 [2000]). Plaintiff’s eventual discontinuance of the action as against all of the defendants except the hospital, not fully effectuated until after the hospital made the instant motion to dismiss, does not render the disobedience excusable or academic. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 270, 833 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manrique-v-new-york-presbyterian-hospital-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack