SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
December 8, 2009
BRENDA SANTIAGO, ETC., RESPONDENT,
NYACK HOSPITAL, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendants Nyack Hospital, Peter Lawrence, and William Silver separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated October 28, 2008, as denied their respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them pursuant to, among other things, CPLR 3126 and 3211(a)(3).
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
(Index No. 9405/06)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Given the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits (see Negro v Saint Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d 727, 728), under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the appellants' respective motions which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. The appellants failed to establish that any of the plaintiff's delays in complying with court-ordered discovery were willful and contumacious such that the drastic remedy of dismissing the complaint would be justified (see Negro v Saint Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 44 AD3d at 728; Sisca v City of Yonkers, N.Y., 24 AD3d 531, 532; A.F.C. Enters., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 33 AD3d 737; Lampel v Sergel, 287 AD2d 548, 549).
Furthermore, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants' motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff, who was granted letters of limited administration with respect to the estate of the decedent, Carmen Alicea, lacked the capacity to maintain the instant action as the representative of that estate (cf. CPLR 205[a]; Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 252).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.