From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 20, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Under CPLR 3404, a case stricken from the trial calendar and not restored within a year thereafter is deemed abandoned and automatically dismissed for neglect to prosecute. The instant case was marked off the trial calendar on October 22, 1987, and the plaintiffs' motion to restore the case to the calendar was made in April 1990 approximately two and one-half years later. Therefore, in order to succeed on their motion, the plaintiffs were required to show that they possessed a meritorious cause of action, that the defendant would not be prejudiced by restoration of the case to the trial calendar, that they had an acceptable excuse for the delay, and that they did not intend to deliberately default or abandon the action (see, Tucker v Hotel Employees Rest. Employees Union, 134 A.D.2d 494; Paglia v Agrawal, 124 A.D.2d 793; Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 A.D.2d 610).

In a medical malpractice case such as this, a motion to vacate requires the submission of a sworn statement by a physician or other medical expert to establish the merits of the action (Fiore v Galang, 64 N.Y.2d 999). The medical affidavit submitted by the physician of the plaintiff Anatoli Nepomniaschi merely states that upon review of the medical records, he was of the opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that there was a deviation from accepted medical practice. Such a statement, which does not make specific observations as to the procedures or treatments performed or the alleged improprieties therein, is insufficient to establish merit (see, Wulster v Rubinstein, 126 A.D.2d 545; Friedberg v Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 A.D.2d 194).

Additionally, the affidavit submitted by Anatoli Nepomniaschi, who is not a physician or a medical expert, is of no value herein (see, Hammer v Hochberg, 128 A.D.2d 834, 836; Paglia v Agrawal, supra). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein

Case Details

Full title:ANATOLI NEPOMNIASCHI et al., Respondents, v. ALLEN J. GOLDSTEIN…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 761

Citing Cases

Kaufman v. Bauer

"In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the affidavit of merit [accompanying a motion to…

Sicoli v. Sasson

Even assuming that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable excuse for their default (see CPLR 2005; Giannoccoli…