Mercedes v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercedes v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

26 A.D.3d 361, 808 N.Y.S.2d 564

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 361 (Mercedes v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center) 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

Mercedes v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, 26 A.D.3d 361, 808 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated July 9, 2004, which granted the respective motions of the respondents Wyckoff Heights Medical Center and Yong Wang, and Jung K. Sung, which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to provide disclosure and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motions are denied, and the cross motion is granted.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the complaint as to the respondents, and the denial of the plaintiffs’ cross motion to restore the action, were not warranted. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated July 9, 2004, which granted the respective motions of the respondents Wyckoff Heights Medical Center and Yong Wang, and Jung K. Sung, which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to provide disclosure and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motions are denied, and the cross motion is granted.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the complaint as to the respondents, and the denial of the plaintiffs’ cross motion to restore the action, were not warranted. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 361, 808 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercedes-v-wyckoff-heights-medical-center-nyappdiv-2006.