Sacramone v. Tunick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sacramone v. Tunick

54 A.D.2d 897, 388 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14724

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 897 (Sacramone v. Tunick) 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

Sacramone v. Tunick, 54 A.D.2d 897, 388 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a dental malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 27, 1975, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The alleged malpractice occurred on January 20, 1964. This action was commenced on June 30, 1967. The 45-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 was served in June, 1972. Plaintiffs served a note of issue on July 28, 1972, but failed to file it. It was only after defendant served a notice of motion to dismiss the complaint, returnable May 30, 1975, that plaintiff, on May 23, 1975, filed the note of issue. In addition to the delay shown by the foregoing facts, plaintiffs, in opposing defendant’s motion, failed to show that their action has merit. The hospital records are insufficient for that purpose. Under the circumstances herein, the failure to grant defendant’s motion constituted an abuse of discretion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, 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, Queens County, entered June 27, 1975, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The alleged malpractice occurred on January 20, 1964. This action was commenced on June 30, 1967. The 45-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 was served in June, 1972. Plaintiffs served a note of issue on July 28, 1972, but failed to file it. It was only after defendant served a notice of motion to dismiss the complaint, returnable May 30, 1975, that plaintiff, on May 23, 1975, filed the note of issue. In addition to the delay shown by the foregoing facts, plaintiffs, in opposing defendant’s motion, failed to show that their action has merit. The hospital records are insufficient for that purpose. Under the circumstances herein, the failure to grant defendant’s motion constituted an abuse of discretion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 897, 388 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacramone-v-tunick-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack