Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gladys ROSARIO, appellant, v. David ELISHIS, etc., et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated April 16, 1999, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated January 20, 1999, which dismissed the action for counsel's failure to appear for jury selection.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs payable by the respondents Maimonides Medical Center and James Marzec, the motion is granted, the order dated January 20, 1999, is vacated, and the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for trial.
On the scheduled trial date of this action, all three trial attorneys in the four-attorney office of the plaintiff's counsel were actually engaged in ongoing trials. The court directed that a jury slip be submitted and the case was then adjourned for several days because of the unavailability of jurors and a court holiday. On the morning of the adjourned date, one of the ongoing trials was settled in Supreme Court, Richmond County, and counsel called to inform the court that he was on his way from Staten Island to select a jury in this case. Approximately one hour later and shortly before counsel arrived, the court granted an oral application made by certain of the defendants to dismiss the case.
The plaintiff then moved to vacate the order dismissing the action. The court denied the motion. Under the circumstances of this case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion (see, Mayo v. New York Tel. Co., 175 A.D.2d 390, 572 N.Y.S.2d 99; Matter of Poole v. Mayer, 112 A.D.2d 853, 492 N.Y.S.2d 765; 22 NYCRR part 125).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 20, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)