From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solis v. Mary Immaculate Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 1991
170 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 25, 1991

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Citing the plaintiff's alleged failure to prosecute this action, the appellant moved to dismiss (see, CPLR 3216). However, no 90-day demand to file a note of issue was served upon the plaintiff prior to the defendant's motion (see, CPLR 3216 [b] [3]). Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion (see, Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 N.Y.2d 901; Bauernfeind v Albany Med. Center Hosp., 154 A.D.2d 754; Ciminelli Constr. Co. v City of Buffalo, 110 A.D.2d 1075; see also, 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3216.07). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Solis v. Mary Immaculate Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 1991
170 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Solis v. Mary Immaculate Hospital

Case Details

Full title:EMILIO SOLIS, Respondent, v. MARY IMMACULATE HOSPITAL et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Feb 25, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 85

Citing Cases

Flushing Natl. Bank v. Carat Contr. Co., Inc.

CPLR 3404 is inapplicable, as there is no evidence that the action had ever been "marked `off' or struck from…

Ameropan Realty Corp. v. Rangeley Lakes Corp.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's order dated November 29, 1993, cannot be deemed…