AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

GERDA DOMINIQUE, Respondent, v. FLUSHING HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, and CHU FU WANG, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Chu Fu Wang (hereinafter Wang) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wang did not clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff's failure to provide any discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith ( see CPLR 3126; Pascarelli v. City of New York, 16 AD3d 472; Ferrarese v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 401). Courts do not possess the power to dismiss an action for general delay unless the plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand for a note of issue ( see CPLR 3216; Chase v. Scavuzzo, 87 NY2d 228; O'Connell v. City Wide Auto Leasing, 6 AD3d 682; Roth v. Black Star Publ. Co., 302 AD2d 442). Here, no such 90-day demand was served.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DOMINIQUE v. FLUSHING HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
(Oct 31, 2005)