From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fittipaldo v. Gal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 1990
159 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 5, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

As recently held by the Court of Appeals, the dismissal of an action is not authorized on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of medical malpractice action pursuant to CPLR 3406 (a) (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 N.Y.2d 1). Since a decision was not made concerning the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to file a late notice of medical malpractice action pursuant to CPLR 3406 (a), the matter is remitted to the Supreme court, Kings County, for a determination of the plaintiff's cross motion, and, if appropriate, consideration of monetary sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.56 (a) (3) (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 N.Y.2d 1, 11, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fittipaldo v. Gal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 1990
159 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Fittipaldo v. Gal

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH FITTIPALDO, Appellant v. ANDREAS GAL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 5, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 352

Citing Cases

Schimsky v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

Accordingly, the plaintiff should have been granted leave to file a late notice. However, the matter should…

Ledlie v. Moadel

We conclude that the motion should have been granted. As recently held by the Court of Appeals, the dismissal…