Pulizzi v. Oghia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pulizzi v. Oghia

262 A.D.2d 545, 691 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7038

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 545 (Pulizzi v. Oghia) 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

Pulizzi v. Oghia, 262 A.D.2d 545, 691 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Hady G. Oghia appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated April 13, 1998, as only conditionally granted his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion with the court (see, Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in only conditionally granting the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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 defendant Hady G. Oghia appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated April 13, 1998, as only conditionally granted his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter of discretion with the court (see, Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in only conditionally granting the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 545, 691 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulizzi-v-oghia-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack