Hemberger v. Jamaica Hospital
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ruiz v. Darren Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cerrone v. North Shore—Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Kapnisakis v. Woo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Kapnisakis v. Woo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Arroyo v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Arroyo v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Pucar v. L.H. Charney Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Suburban Restoration Co. v. Viglotti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Andre v. Bonetto Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Khaolaead v. Leisure Video (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- O'Connell v. City Wide Auto Leasing, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated May 28, 2002, which denied their motion to “restore” the action, and granted the defendants’ separate cross motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied as unnecessary, the cross motions are denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
When the parties failed to appear at a conference on October 22, 1996, the Supreme Court apparently marked the case “inactive.” Whatever that might mean, as no note of issue was filed in this case, the Supreme Court’s action was clearly the equivalent to marking a prenote-of-issue case “off” (see Johnson v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 295 AD2d 567 [2002]). Our decision and order in Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv. (282 AD2d 190 [2001]) makes clear that such a practice is not permitted. Thus, on the instant motions, there was no basis for denying the plaintiffs’ motion to restore or for dismissing the action (see Murray v Smith Corp., 296 AD2d 445 [2002]; Torres v Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co., 296 AD2d 545 [2002]; Farley v Danaher Corp., 295 AD2d 559 [2002]; Johnson v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., supra). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.