Rabetoy v. Atkinson

49 A.D.2d 691, 370 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10541
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 691 (Rabetoy v. Atkinson) 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
Rabetoy v. Atkinson, 49 A.D.2d 691, 370 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motions granted and action dismissed. Memorandum: In a medical malpractice action plaintiff served a summons on defendants, a hospital and two doctors, in June, 1972. Defendants replied by serving notices of appearance and demands for the complaint. However, no complaint was served during the next seven months. Defendant hospital then sent a letter to plaintiff’s attorney requesting the complaint. Six months later, in July, 1973, the complaint was finally sent to defendants. Defendants refused to accept the complaint and instead brought this motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). It then became incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the 13-month delay was excusable and that the claim was meritorious (Mclntire Assoc. v Glens Falls Ins. Co., 41 AD2d 692; Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25). Although it appears that plaintiff may have a meritorious claim, the only contentions made to support the long delay in serving the complaint were the complexity of the litigation, the difficulty in investigating and interviewing witnesses and the inherent difficulties of medical malpractice actions. These factors constitute law office failure and as such are insufficient to excuse the delay (Mclntire Assoc. v Glens Falls Ins. Co., 41 AD2d 692, supra; Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25, 29, supra). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion to dismiss action.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Goldman and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

Related

Hayes v. Burke
88 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Nelson v. Eastman Dental Center
85 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Kinnear v. Iacovelli
70 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Manfreda v. Kendall Agency, Inc.
57 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Warren v. Baker
57 A.D.2d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Coons v. After Dark in Rochester
56 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Ritchie v. Gabler
55 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Ross v. Sanck
54 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Wilkinson v. Higbee
54 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Selwitshka v. Glens Falls Hospital
89 Misc. 2d 519 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
Solomon v. Perkins
52 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Warner v. Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital
52 A.D.2d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Newell v. Makhuli
50 A.D.2d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.2d 691, 370 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabetoy-v-atkinson-nyappdiv-1975.