Blumberg v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumberg v. State

208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

DocketClaim No. 84026

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 581 (Blumberg v. State) 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

Blumberg v. State, 208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered April 16, 1993, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of her claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to vacate the dismissal of her claim, because the claimant offered no reasonable excuse for failing to appear for a scheduled conference and failed to demonstrate that she had a meritorious cause of action (see, 22 NYCRR 206.10 [k]; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333; Matter of Raymond Anthony A., 192 AD2d 529). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered April 16, 1993, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of her claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to vacate the dismissal of her claim, because the claimant offered no reasonable excuse for failing to appear for a scheduled conference and failed to demonstrate that she had a meritorious cause of action (see, 22 NYCRR 206.10 [k]; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333; Matter of Raymond Anthony A., 192 AD2d 529). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumberg-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack