Milbank v. Lauersen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Milbank v. Lauersen

188 A.D.2d 644, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 644 (Milbank v. Lauersen) 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

Milbank v. Lauersen, 188 A.D.2d 644, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 8, 1990, as denied his motion to compel the plaintiffs’ attorney to accept the defendant’s answer containing the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The granting of the defendant’s motion would have vitiated [645]*645the stipulation whereby the plaintiffs extended the defendant’s time to serve its answer in exchange for a waiver by the defendant of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Because setting aside the stipulation could have irrevocably upset the status quo, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint, the motion was properly denied (cf., Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, 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, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated November 8, 1990, as denied his motion to compel the plaintiffs’ attorney to accept the defendant’s answer containing the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The granting of the defendant’s motion would have vitiated [645]*645the stipulation whereby the plaintiffs extended the defendant’s time to serve its answer in exchange for a waiver by the defendant of the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Because setting aside the stipulation could have irrevocably upset the status quo, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint, the motion was properly denied (cf., Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 644, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milbank-v-lauersen-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack