Mullen v. Flushing Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullen v. Flushing Hospital

161 A.D.2d 748

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

DecidedMay 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 748 (Mullen v. Flushing 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

Mullen v. Flushing Hospital, 161 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, the defendant Ganesh P. Kumar appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated February 9, 1989, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of medical malpractice action.

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

An examination of the record leads us to conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to file a late notice of medical malpractice action (CPLR 3406 [a]) since, as the court concluded, there is no evidence that the appellant was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay (see, CPLR 2004; Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 13; Tak Kuen Nagi v Sze Jing Chan, 159 AD2d 278; Criaris v Weber, 158 AD2d 502). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, the defendant Ganesh P. Kumar appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated February 9, 1989, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to file a late notice of medical malpractice action.

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

An examination of the record leads us to conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to file a late notice of medical malpractice action (CPLR 3406 [a]) since, as the court concluded, there is no evidence that the appellant was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay (see, CPLR 2004; Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 13; Tak Kuen Nagi v Sze Jing Chan, 159 AD2d 278; Criaris v Weber, 158 AD2d 502). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-flushing-hospital-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack