Pascale v. Hoppenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pascale v. Hoppenfeld

162 A.D.2d 181

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

DecidedJune 12, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 181 (Pascale v. Hoppenfeld) 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

Pascale v. Hoppenfeld, 162 A.D.2d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1989, which granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 to the extent only of directing completion of discovery within 120 days of service of the court’s order with notice of entry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this medical malpractice action has now been pending 10 years, in light of its arguable merit, as reflected in the 1980 report of the orthopedic surgeon, and plaintiff’s pro se status and alleged medical problems at the time of her failure to comply with defendants’ 90-day notices and demands for discovery, the IAS court’s decision to permit plaintiff one last chance to have this action considered on its merits cannot be said to have been an improvident exercise of its discretion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1989, which granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 to the extent only of directing completion of discovery within 120 days of service of the court’s order with notice of entry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this medical malpractice action has now been pending 10 years, in light of its arguable merit, as reflected in the 1980 report of the orthopedic surgeon, and plaintiff’s pro se status and alleged medical problems at the time of her failure to comply with defendants’ 90-day notices and demands for discovery, the IAS court’s decision to permit plaintiff one last chance to have this action considered on its merits cannot be said to have been an improvident exercise of its discretion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pascale-v-hoppenfeld-nyappdiv-1990.