Uvick v. Sealand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uvick v. Sealand

27 A.D.2d 956, 282 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387

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

DecidedApril 24, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 956 (Uvick v. Sealand) 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

Uvick v. Sealand, 27 A.D.2d 956, 282 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 1966, which (1) granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of their action for failure to file a statement of readiness (CPLR 3404; Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., part 7, rule VIII), (2) granted leave to file the statement of readiness annexed to the moving papers, and (3) restored the action to the foot of the calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to renew upon papers making a factual showing of merit. In our opinion, there are not enough facts presented to show that the method used in the operation was improper or contrary to custom and usage, or to show that there was negligence in its performance, or to substantiate the other allegations of negligence (see Dembicer v. Rosenthal, 53 Misc 2d 777, affd. 20 A D 2d 758, lv. to app. den. 16 N Y 2d 483; [957]*957Mintzer v. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., 10 A D 2d 27). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

—In a malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 1966, which (1) granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of their action for failure to file a statement of readiness (CPLR 3404; Rules of App. Div., 2d Dept., part 7, rule VIII), (2) granted leave to file the statement of readiness annexed to the moving papers, and (3) restored the action to the foot of the calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, with leave to renew upon papers making a factual showing of merit. In our opinion, there are not enough facts presented to show that the method used in the operation was improper or contrary to custom and usage, or to show that there was negligence in its performance, or to substantiate the other allegations of negligence (see Dembicer v. Rosenthal, 53 Misc 2d 777, affd. 20 A D 2d 758, lv. to app. den. 16 N Y 2d 483; [957]*957Mintzer v. Loeb, Rhoades & Co., 10 A D 2d 27). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 956, 282 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uvick-v-sealand-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack