From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kingston v. Brooklyn Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued November 16, 2000.

December 12, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), entered January 31, 2000, which granted the respective motions of the defendant Brooklyn Hospital Center and the defendants Roberto Anon and Ada Anon to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

Richard D. Kranich, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Bower, Sanger Futterman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mary B. Boland and James P. Connors of counsel), for respondent Brooklyn Hospital Center.

Callan, Regenstreich, Koster Brady, LLP, New York, N Y (Michael P. Kandler of counsel), for respondents Roberto Anon and Ada Anon.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff's prior action, based on the same transaction as that upon which the present action is based, was dismissed on April 9, 1998, under circumstances evincing a neglect to prosecute (see, Keel v. Parke, Davis Co., 72 A.D.2d 546, affd 50 N.Y.2d 833). The Supreme Court therefore properly dismissed the present action, holding that it was not commenced within the applicable prescriptive period (see, CPLR 214-a), and also properly determined that the action could not be deemed timely pursuant to CPLR 205(a).

The plaintiff's reliance on Schuman v. Hertz Corp. ( 17 N.Y.2d 604), is unpersuasive. Contrary to the facts of that case, the record here does not permit, much less compel, the conclusion that dismissal of the prior action was intended to be without prejudice to the commencement of a second action. The affirmation submitted by the plaintiff's substitute counsel, in which she asserts that the Justice who dismissed the prior action told her that the dismissal was "without prejudice", is contradicted by an affirmation of defense counsel, and is not supported by the record.


Summaries of

Kingston v. Brooklyn Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2000
278 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kingston v. Brooklyn Hospital Center

Case Details

Full title:CELESTE KINGSTON, APPELLANT, v. BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 323

Citing Cases

Bailey v. Brookdale University Hospital

The parties terminated the first action brought by the plaintiffs by execution of a stipulation of…