Rosario v. Elishis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Elishis

186 A.D.2d 548, 588 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11156

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 548 (Rosario v. Elishis) 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

Rosario v. Elishis, 186 A.D.2d 548, 588 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant Alan Crystal appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated August 17, 1990, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint on condition that the plaintiff serve a bill of particulars, and medical and employment authorizations within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the stroke allegedly suffered by the plaintiff’s attorney after service by the appellant of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, we cannot say that the Supreme Court was required to dismiss the complaint unconditionally (see, Capichiano v Montefiore Hosp., 118 AD2d 676). Rosenblatt, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant Alan Crystal appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated August 17, 1990, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint on condition that the plaintiff serve a bill of particulars, and medical and employment authorizations within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the stroke allegedly suffered by the plaintiff’s attorney after service by the appellant of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, we cannot say that the Supreme Court was required to dismiss the complaint unconditionally (see, Capichiano v Montefiore Hosp., 118 AD2d 676). Rosenblatt, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 548, 588 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-elishis-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack