Vanek v. Mercy Hospital

135 A.D.2d 707, 522 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52645
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 707 (Vanek v. Mercy 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
Vanek v. Mercy Hospital, 135 A.D.2d 707, 522 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, Anthony D. Horvath and Mercy Hospital appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 18, 1987, which denied their respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an order vacating a conditional order of preclusion and extending the plaintiff’s time to serve a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the plaintiff’s cross motion is denied with leave to resubmit the cross motion upon proper notice within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination on the appellants’ respective motion and cross motion, and the plaintiff’s cross motion, if resubmitted.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s cross motion based on his failure to comply with the notice [708]*708provisions of CPLR 2215 and 2103 (see, Matter of Beck v Goodday, 24 AD2d 1016; Morabito v Champion Swimming Pool Corp., 18 AD2d 706; Silverman v Silverman, 261 App Div 1106). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the order is reversed with leave to the plaintiff to resubmit his cross motion upon proper notice and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a new determination on the appellants’ respective motion and cross motion and the plaintiff’s cross motion, if resubmitted. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Bucceri v. Frazer
297 A.D.2d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Nassau County v. Bigler
2001 NY Slip Op 50144(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2001)
Barquet v. Rojas-Castillo
216 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Stanley Tulchin Associates, Inc. v. Vignola
186 A.D.2d 183 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Flax v. Standard Security Life Insurance
150 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Marsico v. Southland Corp.
148 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.2d 707, 522 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanek-v-mercy-hospital-nyappdiv-1987.