Marvel v. Stony Brook Internists, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marvel v. Stony Brook Internists, P. C.

245 A.D.2d 428, 666 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 428 (Marvel v. Stony Brook Internists, P. C.) 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

Marvel v. Stony Brook Internists, P. C., 245 A.D.2d 428, 666 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated November 1, 1996, which denied their motion to vacate two judgments of the same court, entered August 28, 1995, and October 10, 1995, respectively, entered upon an order of the same court, dated May 11, 1995, dismissing the complaint as against all defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In order for the plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to vacatur of the judgments entered upon their failure to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for, inter alia, failure to comply with discovery demands, the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the defaults (see, Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy this standard. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated November 1, 1996, which denied their motion to vacate two judgments of the same court, entered August 28, 1995, and October 10, 1995, respectively, entered upon an order of the same court, dated May 11, 1995, dismissing the complaint as against all defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In order for the plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to vacatur of the judgments entered upon their failure to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for, inter alia, failure to comply with discovery demands, the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the defaults (see, Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy this standard. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 428, 666 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvel-v-stony-brook-internists-p-c-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack