Rothstein v. Grayson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothstein v. Grayson

78 A.D.2d 677, 432 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 677 (Rothstein v. Grayson) 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

Rothstein v. Grayson, 78 A.D.2d 677, 432 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a dental malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 25, 1980, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The delay of more than one year in serving a complaint after demand was made was not adequately explained by counsel’s affirmation, which noted his clients’ residence in the State of New Jersey and their inability to recall the exact dates of treatment. Moreover, the merit of the claim was not established by mere submission of an unsworn dentist’s report describing plaintiff Ida Rothstein’s injuries without establishing their cause. Under the circumstances, dismissal was required (see Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a dental malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 25, 1980, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The delay of more than one year in serving a complaint after demand was made was not adequately explained by counsel’s affirmation, which noted his clients’ residence in the State of New Jersey and their inability to recall the exact dates of treatment. Moreover, the merit of the claim was not established by mere submission of an unsworn dentist’s report describing plaintiff Ida Rothstein’s injuries without establishing their cause. Under the circumstances, dismissal was required (see Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 677, 432 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothstein-v-grayson-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack