Yearwood v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yearwood v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

181 A.D.2d 769, 583 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3736

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 769 (Yearwood v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Yearwood v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 181 A.D.2d 769, 583 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated May 7, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the defendant to accept late service of her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff offered an acceptable explanation for her failure to timely serve the complaint demanded by the defendant and submitted an adequate affidavit of merit. Thus, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005), particularly since there was no prejudice to the defendant. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated May 7, 1990, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the defendant to accept late service of her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff offered an acceptable explanation for her failure to timely serve the complaint demanded by the defendant and submitted an adequate affidavit of merit. Thus, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005), particularly since there was no prejudice to the defendant. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 769, 583 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yearwood-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1992.