Middleton v. Northern Dutchess Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Middleton v. Northern Dutchess Hospital

255 A.D.2d 299, 679 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 299 (Middleton v. Northern Dutchess 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

Middleton v. Northern Dutchess Hospital, 255 A.D.2d 299, 679 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated December 15, 1997, which, upon an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1997, conditionally granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint upon the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the stated condition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint since the plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the court’s order dated October 22, 1997 (see, CPLR 3126; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated December 15, 1997, which, upon an order of the same court, dated October 22, 1997, conditionally granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint upon the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the stated condition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint since the plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the court’s order dated October 22, 1997 (see, CPLR 3126; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 299, 679 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-northern-dutchess-hospital-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack