Brodmerkel v. James McCullagh Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodmerkel v. James McCullagh Co.

46 A.D.3d 853, 847 N.Y.S.2d 867

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 853 (Brodmerkel v. James McCullagh Co.) 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

Brodmerkel v. James McCullagh Co., 46 A.D.3d 853, 847 N.Y.S.2d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unlawful termination of employment in violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant James McCullagh Co., Inc., appeals, and the defendants John E Ficone, Inc., and John E Ficone separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 2, 2006, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion is denied.

“The conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiffs in this case does not amount to a reasonable excuse” (Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar. Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unlawful termination of employment in violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant James McCullagh Co., Inc., appeals, and the defendants John E Ficone, Inc., and John E Ficone separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 2, 2006, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion is denied.

“The conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiffs in this case does not amount to a reasonable excuse” (Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar. Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 853, 847 N.Y.S.2d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodmerkel-v-james-mccullagh-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack