From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindgren v. St. Vincent's Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted April 5, 2000.

May 15, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated April 13, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Stephen Hurst and R. Binlayo to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to former CPLR 306-b.

Daly, Dalton Schermerhorn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth M. Dalton of counsel), for appellant.

Marulli Heubel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard O. Mannarino of counsel), for respondents.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint on December 16, 1996. The plaintiff did not file proof of service until May 13, 1997, 148 days later. Thus, the action was automatically dismissed on April 16, 1997 (see, former CPLR 306-b[a]; Connor v. Deas, 255 A.D.2d 287). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there is no basis for the retroactive application of the current CPLR 306-b (see, Connor v. Deas, supra).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

BRACKEN, J.P., JOY, THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lindgren v. St. Vincent's Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Lindgren v. St. Vincent's Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:KIM LINDGREN, appellant, v. ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER OF RICHMOND…

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

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 334

Citing Cases

Nazzaro, v. Savitz

Since the plaintiffs failed to file proof of service within 120 days of the filing of the summons with notice…