Santiago v. Nyack Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Nyack Hospital

68 A.D.3d 845, 889 N.Y.2d 494

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 845 (Santiago v. Nyack 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

Santiago v. Nyack Hospital, 68 A.D.3d 845, 889 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Given the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits (see Negro v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d 727, 728 [2007]), under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the appellants’ respective motions which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. The appellants failed to establish that any of the plaintiffs delays in complying with court-ordered discovery were willful and contumacious such that the drastic remedy of dismissing the complaint would be justified (see Negro v Saint Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d at 728; Sisca v City of Yonkers, N.Y., 24 AD3d 531, 532 [2005]; A.F.C. Enters., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 33 AD3d 737 [2006]; Lampel v Sergei, 287 AD2d 548, 549 [2001]).

Furthermore, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff, who was granted letters of limited administration with respect to the estate of the decedent, Carmen Alicea, lacked the [846]*846capacity to maintain the instant action as the representative of that estate (cf. CPLR 205 [a]; Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 252 [1980]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Given the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits (see Negro v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d 727, 728 [2007]), under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the appellants’ respective motions which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. The appellants failed to establish that any of the plaintiffs delays in complying with court-ordered discovery were willful and contumacious such that the drastic remedy of dismissing the complaint would be justified (see Negro v Saint Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d at 728; Sisca v City of Yonkers, N.Y., 24 AD3d 531, 532 [2005]; A.F.C. Enters., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 33 AD3d 737 [2006]; Lampel v Sergei, 287 AD2d 548, 549 [2001]).

Furthermore, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff, who was granted letters of limited administration with respect to the estate of the decedent, Carmen Alicea, lacked the [846]*846capacity to maintain the instant action as the representative of that estate (cf. CPLR 205 [a]; Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 252 [1980]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 845, 889 N.Y.2d 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-nyack-hospital-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack