Wynne v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wynne v. Wagner

292 A.D.2d 447, 738 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 447 (Wynne v. Wagner) 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

Wynne v. Wagner, 292 A.D.2d 447, 738 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his application, in effect, to vacate a judgment of the same court (Spodek, J.), entered March 19, 1998.

[448]*448Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This Court previously reinstated the default judgment against the defendant, finding that it was the result of a pattern of willful neglect (see, Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556). Thereafter, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and for a new hearing on damages was denied by order of the Supreme Court dated February 28, 2000. This appeal is from the defendant’s subsequent motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment.

We reject the defendant’s arguments that the damages awarded against him are not adequately supported by the evidence adduced at the inquest, and that the award is excessive. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his application, in effect, to vacate a judgment of the same court (Spodek, J.), entered March 19, 1998.

[448]*448Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This Court previously reinstated the default judgment against the defendant, finding that it was the result of a pattern of willful neglect (see, Wynne v Wagner, 262 AD2d 556). Thereafter, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and for a new hearing on damages was denied by order of the Supreme Court dated February 28, 2000. This appeal is from the defendant’s subsequent motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment.

We reject the defendant’s arguments that the damages awarded against him are not adequately supported by the evidence adduced at the inquest, and that the award is excessive. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 447, 738 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynne-v-wagner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack