You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Havens v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center

Citations: 239 A.D.2d 466; 658 N.Y.S.2d 965; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5412

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 19, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a medical malpractice case, defendant J. Kim, M.D. appeals a Supreme Court order from September 4, 1996, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute and partially granted a cross motion by the New York City Commissioner of Social Services. The court provided a 60-day stay to allow the Commissioner to seek a substitute guardian ad litem and appoint new legal counsel for the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, stating that there is a strong policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits and concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. Costs are awarded to the respondent. Judges Miller, Thompson, Joy, and Luciano concurred in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

Application: The court allowed for the appointment of a substitute guardian ad litem and new legal counsel for the plaintiff, indicating a procedural step to ensure proper representation in the case.

Reasoning: The court provided a 60-day stay to allow the Commissioner to seek a substitute guardian ad litem and appoint new legal counsel for the plaintiff.

Awarding of Costs

Application: The appellate decision included an award of costs to the respondent, reinforcing the principle of compensating prevailing parties for legal expenses incurred.

Reasoning: Costs are awarded to the respondent.

Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Application: The court considered a motion to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute, but ultimately denied the motion, emphasizing the importance of resolving cases on their merits.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, stating that there is a strong policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits and concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.