Sadik v. Maimonides Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sadik v. Maimonides Hospital

131 A.D.2d 456, 516 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47911

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 456 (Sadik v. Maimonides Hospital) 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

Sadik v. Maimonides Hospital, 131 A.D.2d 456, 516 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendants Kroop, Senderoff and Thompson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated April 10, 1987, as (1) vacated the plaintiff’s default in timely responding to their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, compelling the plaintiff to produce certain documents for discovery, and (2) denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, on the condition that the plaintiff comply with certain outstanding discovery requests.

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

Given the circumstances of the plaintiff’s default, which occurred on November 18, 1985 when the plaintiff’s counsel appeared late for the Special Term, Part 8-A Motion Calendar call, the prompt motion to vacate the default made by order to show cause on November 27, 1985, only nine days after the default, and the lack of prejudice to the appellants, we find that the determination of Special Term to vacate the plaintiff’s default and deny the appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the condition that the plaintiff comply with outstanding discovery demands, was hot an abuse of discretion (see, Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Weinstein, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendants Kroop, Senderoff and Thompson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated April 10, 1987, as (1) vacated the plaintiff’s default in timely responding to their motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, compelling the plaintiff to produce certain documents for discovery, and (2) denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, on the condition that the plaintiff comply with certain outstanding discovery requests.

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

Given the circumstances of the plaintiff’s default, which occurred on November 18, 1985 when the plaintiff’s counsel appeared late for the Special Term, Part 8-A Motion Calendar call, the prompt motion to vacate the default made by order to show cause on November 27, 1985, only nine days after the default, and the lack of prejudice to the appellants, we find that the determination of Special Term to vacate the plaintiff’s default and deny the appellants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the condition that the plaintiff comply with outstanding discovery demands, was hot an abuse of discretion (see, Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Weinstein, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 456, 516 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadik-v-maimonides-hospital-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack