Nagi v. Sze Jing Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagi v. Sze Jing Chan

159 A.D.2d 278

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 278 (Nagi v. Sze Jing Chan) 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

Nagi v. Sze Jing Chan, 159 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Dontzin, J.), entered March 22, 1989, which granted plaintiff’s motion to serve a late CPLR 3406 notice of medical malpractice action and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As has recently been made clear by the Court of Appeals, a plaintiff’s failure to timely file a notice of medical malpractice action within 60 days after joinder of issue (CPLR 3406 [a]) does not authorize the harsh sanction of dismissal. (Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1.) Moreover, plaintiff has made showing of "good cause” for the delay, premised in law office failure (CPLR 2005), and there is no evidence that defendant has been prejudiced in any way. (See, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, supra, at 12.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Dontzin, J.), entered March 22, 1989, which granted plaintiff’s motion to serve a late CPLR 3406 notice of medical malpractice action and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As has recently been made clear by the Court of Appeals, a plaintiff’s failure to timely file a notice of medical malpractice action within 60 days after joinder of issue (CPLR 3406 [a]) does not authorize the harsh sanction of dismissal. (Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1.) Moreover, plaintiff has made showing of "good cause” for the delay, premised in law office failure (CPLR 2005), and there is no evidence that defendant has been prejudiced in any way. (See, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, supra, at 12.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagi-v-sze-jing-chan-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack