From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braun v. Manes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 4, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion of the defendant Massapequa General Hospital and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Harvey Manes which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of medical malpractice action are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

In Tewari v. Tsoutsouras ( 75 N.Y.2d 1) the Court of Appeals ruled that the dismissal of an action was not an authorized sanction for failure to timely file a notice of medical malpractice action under CPLR 3406 (a). Accordingly, the plaintiff should be granted leave to file a late notice. However, the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings with respect to the plaintiff's motion, to determine the appropriate amount of sanctions to be imposed upon the plaintiff, if any, as well as for a determination of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Manes which was to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Braun v. Manes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Braun v. Manes

Case Details

Full title:BERNHARD A. BRAUN, Appellant, v. HARVEY MANES et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 382

Citing Cases

Schimsky v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital

Accordingly, the plaintiff should have been granted leave to file a late notice. However, the matter should…