Saunders v. Bolgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saunders v. Bolgan

134 A.D.2d 904, 521 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51099

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 904 (Saunders v. Bolgan) 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

Saunders v. Bolgan, 134 A.D.2d 904, 521 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant hospital’s motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or amend a prior conditional order of preclusion requiring plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars and medical authorizations upon defendant within 30 days. Following entry of the prior order, plaintiffs failed to comply with it or request an extension, prompting defendant to move to enforce the order of preclusion and dismiss the complaint. Instead, the court granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to permit them to serve the bill of particulars within 20 days of determination of the motions.

Plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in serving the bill of particulars. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of merit attested to by a person with knowledge of the facts. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion to be excused of their default should have been denied and defen[905]*905dant’s motion to dismiss granted (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. —dismiss action.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant hospital’s motion granted. Memorandum: The court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or amend a prior conditional order of preclusion requiring plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars and medical authorizations upon defendant within 30 days. Following entry of the prior order, plaintiffs failed to comply with it or request an extension, prompting defendant to move to enforce the order of preclusion and dismiss the complaint. Instead, the court granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to permit them to serve the bill of particulars within 20 days of determination of the motions.

Plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in serving the bill of particulars. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of merit attested to by a person with knowledge of the facts. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion to be excused of their default should have been denied and defen[905]*905dant’s motion to dismiss granted (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. —dismiss action.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 904, 521 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-bolgan-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack