Pellegrino v. Salzberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pellegrino v. Salzberg

270 A.D.2d 470, 705 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 470 (Pellegrino v. Salzberg) 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

Pellegrino v. Salzberg, 270 A.D.2d 470, 705 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 19, 1999, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated April 21, 1999, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior orders of the same court directing disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By order dated April 21, 1999, the Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with orders directing disclosure. In view of the plaintiffs’ conduct, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate that order (see, Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252; Watson v Esposito, 231 AD2d 512; Kaplan v Elkind, 208 AD2d 683). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 19, 1999, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated April 21, 1999, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior orders of the same court directing disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By order dated April 21, 1999, the Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with orders directing disclosure. In view of the plaintiffs’ conduct, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate that order (see, Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252; Watson v Esposito, 231 AD2d 512; Kaplan v Elkind, 208 AD2d 683). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 470, 705 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pellegrino-v-salzberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack