Trendell v. Community General Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trendell v. Community General Hospital

278 A.D.2d 810, 718 N.Y.S.2d 680, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 810 (Trendell v. Community General 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

Trendell v. Community General Hospital, 278 A.D.2d 810, 718 N.Y.S.2d 680, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, cross motion denied, motions granted and action dismissed. Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for defendants’ alleged medical malpractice, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) based on untimely service of the complaint and in granting the cross motion of plaintiff to excuse his default and extend the time to serve the complaint. Plaintiff failed to show the meritorious nature of the action (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1000-1001; Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Ward v Quick, 249 AD2d 943, 944). (Ap[811]*811peals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, cross motion denied, motions granted and action dismissed. Memorandum: In this action to recover damages for defendants’ alleged medical malpractice, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motions to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) based on untimely service of the complaint and in granting the cross motion of plaintiff to excuse his default and extend the time to serve the complaint. Plaintiff failed to show the meritorious nature of the action (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1000-1001; Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Ward v Quick, 249 AD2d 943, 944). (Ap[811]*811peals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 810, 718 N.Y.S.2d 680, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trendell-v-community-general-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack