From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosario v. Elishis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued February 8, 2000

March 23, 2000

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 16, 1999, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated January 20, 1999, which dismissed the action for counsel's failure to appear for jury selection.

Charles Berkman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert Tolchin and Charles Berkman of counsel), for appellant.

Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein Deustch, LLP, New York, N Y (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondents Maimonides Medical Center and James Marzec.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs payable by the respondents Maimonides Medical Center and James Marzec, the motion is granted, the order dated January 20, 1999, is vacated, and the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial.

On the scheduled trial date of this action, all three trial attorneys in the four-attorney office of the plaintiff's counsel were actually engaged in ongoing trials. The court directed that a jury slip be submitted and the case was then adjourned for several days because of the unavailability of jurors and a court holiday. On the morning of the adjourned date, one of the ongoing trials was settled in Supreme Court, Richmond County, and counsel called to inform the court that he was on his way from Staten Island to select a jury in this case. Approximately one hour later and shortly before counsel arrived, the court granted an oral application made by certain of the defendants to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff then moved to vacate the order dismissing the action. The court denied the motion. Under the circumstances of this case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion (see, Mayo v. New York Tel. Co., 175 A.D.2d 390 ; Matter of Poole v. Mayer, 112 A.D.2d 853 ; 22 N.Y.CRR part 125).

BRACKEN, J.P., RITTER, ALTMAN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosario v. Elishis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Rosario v. Elishis

Case Details

Full title:GLADYS ROSARIO, appellant, v. DAVID ELISHIS, etc., et al., respondents

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 645

Citing Cases

Rakowicz v. Fashion Institute of Tech

Furthermore, the three-day adjournment granted by the court did not give the plaintiff's trial counsel a…

IN RE OF IBK ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ONEKEY, LLC

The arbitrator's denial of the request by the petitioner's counsel for an adjournment on the basis of actual…