Alvarado v. 1824 Weeks Ave. Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvarado v. 1824 Weeks Ave. Equities, Inc.

305 A.D.2d 118, 757 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610

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

DecidedMay 1, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 118 (Alvarado v. 1824 Weeks Ave. Equities, Inc.) 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

Alvarado v. 1824 Weeks Ave. Equities, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 118, 757 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal of this action and restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur of the dismissal of this action, which dismissal was ordered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, was properly denied since plaintiff did not meet his burden as movant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at calendar call (see Polir Constr. v Etingin, 297 AD2d 509, 511-512 [2002]). It was the obligation of plaintiff’s attorney to apprise her adversary of her current address, and not the adversary’s responsibility to search for her.

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal of this action and restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur of the dismissal of this action, which dismissal was ordered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, was properly denied since plaintiff did not meet his burden as movant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at calendar call (see Polir Constr. v Etingin, 297 AD2d 509, 511-512 [2002]). It was the obligation of plaintiff’s attorney to apprise her adversary of her current address, and not the adversary’s responsibility to search for her.

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 118, 757 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarado-v-1824-weeks-ave-equities-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack