Paradiso v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paradiso v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

134 A.D.3d 1002, 20 N.Y.S.3d 913

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2015

Docket2015-02562

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 1002 (Paradiso v. St. John's Episcopal 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

Paradiso v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital, 134 A.D.3d 1002, 20 N.Y.S.3d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered December 15, 2014, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, *1003 and the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint is denied.

The note of issue was vacated on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff was not thereafter served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. In June 2014, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that CPLR 3404 was inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion. We reverse.

When the note of issue was vacated, the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status, and CPLR 3404 did not apply to this case (see Goodman v Lempa, 124 AD3d 581 [2015]; Dokaj v Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership, 55 AD3d 661 [2008]; Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v Viglotti, 54 AD3d 750, 751 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint should have been denied (see Melendez v Plato Gen. Contr., 128 AD3d 653, 654 [2015]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention raised for the first time on appeal, this action could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, since there was no motion requesting this relief and the plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue (see Goodman v Lempa, 124 AD3d 581 [2015]; Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17, 19 [2013]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered December 15, 2014, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, *1003 and the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint is denied.

The note of issue was vacated on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff was not thereafter served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. In June 2014, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that CPLR 3404 was inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion. We reverse.

When the note of issue was vacated, the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status, and CPLR 3404 did not apply to this case (see Goodman v Lempa, 124 AD3d 581 [2015]; Dokaj v Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership, 55 AD3d 661 [2008]; Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v Viglotti, 54 AD3d 750, 751 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the complaint should have been denied (see Melendez v Plato Gen. Contr., 128 AD3d 653, 654 [2015]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention raised for the first time on appeal, this action could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, since there was no motion requesting this relief and the plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue (see Goodman v Lempa, 124 AD3d 581 [2015]; Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17, 19 [2013]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 1002, 20 N.Y.S.3d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paradiso-v-st-johns-episcopal-hospital-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack