Bouloy v. Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bouloy v. Peters

262 A.D.2d 209, 692 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7422

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

DecidedJune 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 209 (Bouloy v. Peters) 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

Bouloy v. Peters, 262 A.D.2d 209, 692 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 11, 1998, which denied petitioners’ application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, petitioners’ ap[210]*210plication to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance signed by counsel in June 1993. Petitioners became aware of the grounds upon which their application for vacatur of the stipulation is premised in January 1996, but, unaccountably, did not move to vacate the stipulation until more than two years later (see, Matter of Guttenplan, 222 AD2d 255, 257, lv denied 88 NY2d 812). In any case, an action by petitioner against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, since, it is clear, petitioners’ submissions upon this application notwithstanding, that petitioner Hardie Bouloy was injured by a co-worker during the course of their employment and while the co-worker was operating a vehicle owned by respondent Peters (see, Naso v Lafata, 4 NY2d 585, 589; Albarran v City of New York, 56 AD2d 822). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 11, 1998, which denied petitioners’ application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, petitioners’ ap[210]*210plication to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance signed by counsel in June 1993. Petitioners became aware of the grounds upon which their application for vacatur of the stipulation is premised in January 1996, but, unaccountably, did not move to vacate the stipulation until more than two years later (see, Matter of Guttenplan, 222 AD2d 255, 257, lv denied 88 NY2d 812). In any case, an action by petitioner against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, since, it is clear, petitioners’ submissions upon this application notwithstanding, that petitioner Hardie Bouloy was injured by a co-worker during the course of their employment and while the co-worker was operating a vehicle owned by respondent Peters (see, Naso v Lafata, 4 NY2d 585, 589; Albarran v City of New York, 56 AD2d 822). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 209, 692 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouloy-v-peters-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack