Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center

Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center

56 A.D.2d 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 759
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2008
StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 454 (Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center) 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
Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center, 56 A.D.2d 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinions

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 24, 2007, as denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated March 20, 1996, dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The motion of Patricia J. Purgess to vacate a prior order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated March 20, 1996, dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, was made almost 11 years after the issuance of that order. “The doctrine of laches bars recovery where a party’s inaction has prejudiced another party, making it inequitable to permit recovery” (First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524, 525 [1996]). The essential element of the equitable defense of laches is delay prejudicial to the opposing party (see Matter of Barabash, 31 NY2d 76, 81 [1972]; Resk v City of New York, 293 AD2d 661, 662 [2002]). [455]*455Here, Purgess’s delay of nearly 11 years in seeking to vacate the order dated March 20, 1996, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay, warrants the application of the doctrine of laches (see First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d at 525).

In light of this determination, we do not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. Rivera, J.P, Florio and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chase v. Scavuzzo
661 N.E.2d 1368 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations
250 N.E.2d 690 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
In re the Estate of Barabash
286 N.E.2d 268 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Airmont Homes, Inc. v. Town of Ramapo
508 N.E.2d 927 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Baczkowski v. D.A. Collins Construction Co.
678 N.E.2d 460 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
Travis v. Cuff
28 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
First Nationwide Bank v. Galano
223 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hodge v. New York City Transit Authority
273 A.D.2d 42 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Service, Inc.
282 A.D.2d 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Resk v. City of New York
293 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A.D.2d 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenstrauss-v-womens-imaging-center-nyappdiv-2008.