From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Redmond v. Manes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2001
281 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 6, 2001.

March 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and medical malpractice, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 28, 2000, which granted the plaintiff's motions (1) to renew his prior motion to vacate the dismissal of the action under CPLR 3404, and, upon renewal, vacated the dismissal and restored the action to the trial calendar, and (2) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered November 3, 1999, in favor of the defendant Harvey R. Manes.

Pulvers, Pulvers, Thompson, Kutner, P.C., New York, N Y (Andrew B. Weiner of counsel), for appellant Harvey R. Manes.

Deegan Deegan (Mauro Goldberg Lilling, LLP, Great Neck, N Y [Kenneth Mauro, Caryn L. Lilling, and Timothy R. Capowski] of counsel), for appellants Baron Vesel, P.C., Barry S. Huston, Edward Vesel, Peter D. Baron, and Martin L. Baron.

Rivkin, Radler Kremer, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick and Merril S. Biscone of counsel), for appellant Finz Finz, P.C.

Flomenhaft Cannata, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Benedene C. Cannata of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals by Stuart L. Finz and Judy Donnel are dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeals by the defendants Baron Vesel, P.C., Finz Finz, P.C., Barry S. Huston, Edward Vesel, Peter D. Baron, and Martin L. Baron from so much of the order as granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment in favor of the defendant Harvey R. Manes are dismissed, as those appellants are not aggrieved by that part of the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion granting renewal, vacating the dismissal of the action, vacating the judgment in favor of the defendant Harvey R. Manes, and restoring the action to the trial calendar (see, Kinsler v. Iovino, 277 A.D.2d 286 [2d Dept., Nov. 13, 2000]; Scott v. Brickhouse, 251 A.D.2d 397; Pepe v. Tannenbaum, 262 A.D.2d 381).


Summaries of

Redmond v. Manes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2001
281 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Redmond v. Manes

Case Details

Full title:JAMES R. REDMOND, RESPONDENT, v. HARVEY R. MANES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS…

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

Date published: Mar 5, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 285