From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Asaro v. Gilpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-03154

Submitted November 28, 2001.

December 24, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated March 14, 2001, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to commencing the action.

The Sallah Law Firm, P.C., Holtsville, N.Y. (Patrick M. Kerr of counsel), for appellant.

Michael T. Clifford Associates, PLLC (Anita Nissan Yehuda, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendants' demand for an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h(5) before commencing the action (see, Andujar v. New York City Hous. Auth., 226 A.D.2d 657; Bailey v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 606; Restivo v. Village of Lynbrook, 84 A.D.2d 831; CPLR 205[a]; Lehman Bros. v. Hughes Hubbard Reed, 92 N.Y.2d 1014, 1016; see also, Joseph Francese, Inc. v. Enlarged City School Dist. of Troy, 95 N.Y.2d 59, 64-65).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Asaro v. Gilpin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 24, 2001
289 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Asaro v. Gilpin

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER ASARO, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM GILPIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Dec 24, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 403

Citing Cases

Wilson v. New York City Hsg. Auth

Only after the defendant made the instant motion to dismiss, in August 2001, did the plaintiffs begin to…

Steenbuck v. Sklarow

We affirm. When requested, a claimant's submission to a General Municipal Law § 50-h examination is a…