From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cerrone v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2014-01558

12-16-2015

Brian Cerrone, appellant, v. North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., et al., defendants.

Ginsberg & Wolf, P.C., New York, NY (Martin Wolf of counsel), for appellant.


LEONARD B. AUSTIN

SHERI S. ROMAN

ROBERT J. MILLER

BETSY BARROS, JJ. (Index No. 24047/10)

Ginsberg & Wolf, P.C., New York, NY (Martin Wolf of counsel), for appellant.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered November 13, 2013, which denied his unopposed motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, to restore the action to active status, to extend the time to file a note of issue, and to compel the defendants to comply with his discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's unopposed motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, to restore the action to active status, to extend the time to file a note of issue, and to compel the defendants to comply with his discovery demands is granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion, inter alia, to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to active status. CPLR 3404 is inapplicable to pre-note of issue cases and, therefore, that statute did not provide a basis for the court to dismiss the action (see Kapnisakis v Woo, 114 AD3d 729, 730; Travis v Cuff, 28 AD3d 749, 750; Hemberger v Jamaica Hosp., 306 AD2d 244, 244; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 198). Further, an action in pre-note of issue status may be dismissed for want of prosecution under CPLR 3216 only if the statutory preconditions to dismissal are met (see Anthoulis v Mastoros, 36 AD3d 571, 572; Travis v Cuff, 28 AD3d at 750; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d at 194), and here, those preconditions were not met.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court


Summaries of

Cerrone v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 16, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Cerrone v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Brian Cerrone, appellant, v. North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 16, 2015

Citations

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)