Burgess v. BROOKLYN JEWISH HOSPITAL
| Decision Date | 01 May 2000 |
| Citation | 707 N.Y.S.2d 462,272 A.D.2d 285 |
| Parties | ANNA BURGESS, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>BROOKLYN JEWISH HOSPITAL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's second motion for renewal, and, upon renewal, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court properly accepted law office failure as an excuse for the plaintiff's failure to timely serve a complaint in response to the defendant's demand therefor (see, CPLR 2005). Given the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the apparent merit to the instant action, the plaintiff's lack of intent to abandon the action, the lack of prejudice to the defendant caused by the plaintiff's delay in serving the complaint, and the fact that the plaintiff's delay in serving the complaint was not willful, the plaintiff should not be deprived of her day in court (see, Ryerson & Son v Petito, 133 AD2d 668; Rait v Bauer, 121 AD2d 704; Katz v Knoesel Serv. Ctr., 117 AD2d 781).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vera v. Soohoo
...in court because of some difficulty in rescheduling a trial date that was convenient for all the parties ( see Burgess v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 272 A.D.2d 285, 707 N.Y.S.2d 462). We recognize that the Supreme Court has broad discretion in controlling its trial calendar, but that discretion......
-
Mid-Hudson Props., Inc. v. Klein, 2016–10552
...v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 664, 854 N.Y.S.2d 741 ; Henry v. Kuveke, 9 A.D.3d 476, 781 N.Y.S.2d 114 ; Burgess v. Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 272 A.D.2d 285, 707 N.Y.S.2d 462 ).Accordingly, under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting Varble'......
-
Porter v. Beaulieu
...v Beacon Community Dev. Agency, 180 A.D.2d 1000), as well as a reasonable excuse for the relatively short delay (cf., Burgess v Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., 272 A.D.2d 285; Quinn v Wenco Food Sys. Co., 269 A.D.2d 437, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 758; Grant v City of N. Tonawanda, 225 A.D.2d 1089). Thus, ......
- Boris v. Boris