Smith v. North Shore University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. North Shore University Hospital

198 A.D.2d 219, 604 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10178

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 219 (Smith v. North Shore University 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

Smith v. North Shore University Hospital, 198 A.D.2d 219, 604 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), entered August 20, 1991, as granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint due to the infant plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery (see, CPLR 3126). Specifically, the infant plaintiff failed to comply with two orders, dated July 10, 1989, and October 25, 1989, directing him to appear for an examination before trial and for a physical examination. We reject the contention of counsel that since the whereabouts of the infant plaintiff were unknown, his failure to comply with the orders precluded the dismissal of the action (see, Gonzalez v Paniccioli, 174 AD2d 709). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), entered August 20, 1991, as granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint due to the infant plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery (see, CPLR 3126). Specifically, the infant plaintiff failed to comply with two orders, dated July 10, 1989, and October 25, 1989, directing him to appear for an examination before trial and for a physical examination. We reject the contention of counsel that since the whereabouts of the infant plaintiff were unknown, his failure to comply with the orders precluded the dismissal of the action (see, Gonzalez v Paniccioli, 174 AD2d 709). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 219, 604 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-north-shore-university-hospital-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack