Rowell v. Joyce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rowell v. Joyce

304 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 496

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 639 (Rowell v. Joyce) 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

Rowell v. Joyce, 304 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated March 12, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 5, 2001, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the plaintiffs’ failure to object to that motion, and for leave to serve and file a late complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit, the absence of any intent to abandon the action, the fact that the delay in serving the complaint was neither willful nor protracted and that the defendants have not been prejudiced thereby, as well as the strong public policy of resolving cases on the merits, we find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion (see Ryerson & Son v Petito, 133 AD2d 668 [1987]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated March 12, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 5, 2001, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the plaintiffs’ failure to object to that motion, and for leave to serve and file a late complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit, the absence of any intent to abandon the action, the fact that the delay in serving the complaint was neither willful nor protracted and that the defendants have not been prejudiced thereby, as well as the strong public policy of resolving cases on the merits, we find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion (see Ryerson & Son v Petito, 133 AD2d 668 [1987]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 639, 757 N.Y.S.2d 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowell-v-joyce-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack