Sitner v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sitner v. Lenox Hill Hospital

1 A.D.2d 117, 766 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1 A.D.3d 117, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 117 (Sitner v. Lenox Hill 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

Sitner v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 1 A.D.2d 117, 766 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1 A.D.3d 117, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 27, 2002 and January 9, 2002, which, inter alia, vacated a prior order of the same court and Justice dismissing the complaints in these medical malpractice actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances presented, in which, inter alia, the defect upon which the dismissals of plaintiffs actions was premised no longer poses a practical impediment to the actions’ prosecution and was without prejudicial consequence to defendants, and in which plaintiff has offered an expert affidavit indicating that her malpractice claims against defendants are viable, the court properly exercised its discretion to permit the actions to be decided on the merits. Concur — Buckley, EJ., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 27, 2002 and January 9, 2002, which, inter alia, vacated a prior order of the same court and Justice dismissing the complaints in these medical malpractice actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the particular circumstances presented, in which, inter alia, the defect upon which the dismissals of plaintiffs actions was premised no longer poses a practical impediment to the actions’ prosecution and was without prejudicial consequence to defendants, and in which plaintiff has offered an expert affidavit indicating that her malpractice claims against defendants are viable, the court properly exercised its discretion to permit the actions to be decided on the merits. Concur — Buckley, EJ., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 117, 766 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1 A.D.3d 117, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitner-v-lenox-hill-hospital-nyappdiv-2003.