Agins v. Darmstadter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Agins v. Darmstadter

278 A.D.2d 439, 717 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13933

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 439 (Agins v. Darmstadter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agins v. Darmstadter, 278 A.D.2d 439, 717 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order of the same court which dismissed the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate the dismissal in this case and restore the action to the trial calendar, it was necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate the merits of the action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636). The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated February 22, 2000, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order of the same court which dismissed the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate the dismissal in this case and restore the action to the trial calendar, it was necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate the merits of the action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636). The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 439, 717 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agins-v-darmstadter-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack