Rossi v. Scheinbach
| Decision Date | 13 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-07550, 2014-11009 |
| Citation | 9 N.Y.S.3d 366,128 A.D.3d 791,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04110 |
| Parties | Thomas ROSSI, et al., appellants, v. Alan J. SCHEINBACH, etc., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 791
9 N.Y.S.3d 366
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04110
Thomas ROSSI, et al., appellants
v.
Alan J. SCHEINBACH, etc., et al., respondents.
2014-07550, 2014-11009
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 13, 2015.
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. (Barry S. Kantrowitz and Reginald H. Rutishauser of counsel), for appellants.
Kelly, Rode & Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (John W. Hoefling of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court,
Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered June 17, 2014, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the action to the active calendar, and (2) an order of the same court entered November 21, 2014, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to reargue and renew.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered November 21, 2014, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered November 21, 2014, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was, in effect, for leave to renew is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order entered June 17, 2014; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered June 17, 2014, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to restore the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. Union N. Am. v. Eun Hee A. CHANG
...v. New York El. & Elec. Corp., 150 A.D.3d at 928, 55 N.Y.S.3d 114 ; see Lee v. Rad, 132 A.D.3d 643, 17 N.Y.S.3d 489 ; Rossi v. Scheinbach, 128 A.D.3d 791, 9 N.Y.S.3d 366 ; Altman v. Donnenfeld, 119 A.D.3d at 828, 990 N.Y.S.2d 542 ; Gordon v. Ratner, 97 A.D.3d at 635, 948 N.Y.S.2d 627 ). RIV......
-
Amos v. Southampton Hosp.
...Zangari, 116 A.D.3d 753, 754, 984 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; Klein v. MTA–Long Island Bus, 61 A.D.3d at 723, 877 N.Y.S.2d 195 ; cf. Rossi v. Scheinbach, 128 A.D.3d 791, 9 N.Y.S.3d 366 ).Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch ......
-
Renaissance Venture Capital Corp. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
...v. Goldberger, 31 A.D.3d at 695, 821 N.Y.S.2d 94, quoting Citibank v. Chicago Tit. Ins. Co., 214 A.D.2d 212, 221–222, 632 N.Y.S.2d 779 ).128 A.D.3d 791 Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is no......
- 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v. Beaton