Murray v. Morelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Morelli

208 A.D.2d 604, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9617

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 604 (Murray v. Morelli) 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

Murray v. Morelli, 208 A.D.2d 604, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a chiropractic malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), entered November 4, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), to dismiss the action as time barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that its prior dismissal of a similar action between the parties was based on the plaintiff’s neglect to prosecute (see, Flans v Federal Ins. Co., 43 NY2d 881; Keel v Parke, Davis & Co., 72 AD2d 546, affd 50 NY2d 833; Ivory v Eckstrom, 98 AD2d 763; Kelly v Rosenthal, 176 AD2d 283). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to the six-month savings provision contained in CPLR 205 (a), and her present action was properly dismissed as time barred. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a chiropractic malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), entered November 4, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), to dismiss the action as time barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that its prior dismissal of a similar action between the parties was based on the plaintiff’s neglect to prosecute (see, Flans v Federal Ins. Co., 43 NY2d 881; Keel v Parke, Davis & Co., 72 AD2d 546, affd 50 NY2d 833; Ivory v Eckstrom, 98 AD2d 763; Kelly v Rosenthal, 176 AD2d 283). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to the six-month savings provision contained in CPLR 205 (a), and her present action was properly dismissed as time barred. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 604, 618 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-morelli-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack