Wren v. Lawrence Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wren v. Lawrence Hospital

203 A.D.2d 559, 612 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4338

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an [560]*560order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated May 7, 1992, which, in effect, granted her motion to renew and reargue her prior motion for an adjournment of the trial, and upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its prior order dated June 5, 1991, which upon a ruling denying an adjournment, dismissed the complaint on the plaintiff’s failure to proceed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the inordinate delays in this case (most of which were caused by the plaintiff’s actions or inaction), and the fact that the plaintiff had two months advance warning as to when the trial would commence, it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to grant the plaintiff a trial adjournment when both she and her expert witness failed to appear on the first day of trial. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an [560]*560order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated May 7, 1992, which, in effect, granted her motion to renew and reargue her prior motion for an adjournment of the trial, and upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its prior order dated June 5, 1991, which upon a ruling denying an adjournment, dismissed the complaint on the plaintiff’s failure to proceed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the inordinate delays in this case (most of which were caused by the plaintiff’s actions or inaction), and the fact that the plaintiff had two months advance warning as to when the trial would commence, it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to grant the plaintiff a trial adjournment when both she and her expert witness failed to appear on the first day of trial. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Wren v. Lawrence Hospital, 203 A.D.2d 559, 612 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 559 (Wren v. Lawrence Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related