Tyrell v. City of N.Y.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtANDRIAS
Citation79 A.D.3d 596,912 N.Y.S.2d 880
Decision Date21 December 2010
PartiesMichael TYRELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
912 N.Y.S.2d 880
79 A.D.3d 596


Michael TYRELL, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Dec. 21, 2010.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), for appellant.

Adam M. Thompson, New York, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered January 22, 2009, which denied defendant New York City Health and Hospital Corporation's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216(e) for failure to prosecute, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's delay in serving and filing the note of issue was minimal, his explanation for it was adequate, i.e., that there was a misunderstanding between counsel regarding whether defendant would be satisfied with a bill of particulars if it was provided within the 90-day period, and no prejudice to defendant was alleged to have resulted from the delay. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the motion court that plaintiff should be permitted to proceed ( see Espinoza v. 373-381 Park Ave. S., LLC, 68 A.D.3d 532, 891...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • In re Timothy M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 21 Diciembre 2010
    ...for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that respondent79 A.D.3d 596did not meet the parental responsibility criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d). The evidence shows that respondent was incarcer......
  • BDO U.S., LLP v. Field
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 21 Diciembre 2010
    ...). The provision was neither the result of disparate bargaining power nor "grossly unreasonable" under the circumstances ( see 912 N.Y.S.2d 880Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10-11, 537 N.Y.S.2d 787, 534 N.E.2d 824 [1988] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). We ......
2 cases
  • In re Timothy M.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 21 Diciembre 2010
    ...for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that respondent79 A.D.3d 596did not meet the parental responsibility criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d). The evidence shows that respondent was incarcer......
  • BDO U.S., LLP v. Field
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 21 Diciembre 2010
    ...). The provision was neither the result of disparate bargaining power nor "grossly unreasonable" under the circumstances ( see 912 N.Y.S.2d 880Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10-11, 537 N.Y.S.2d 787, 534 N.E.2d 824 [1988] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). We ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT