Calza v. Visbal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calza v. Visbal

38 A.D.2d 854, 331 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5269

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 854 (Calza v. Visbal) 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

Calza v. Visbal, 38 A.D.2d 854, 331 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 20, 1971, resettling a prior order affirmed, without costs. No- opinion. Appeal from order of the same court dated July 28, 1971 dismissed as academic, without costs. That order was superseded by the above-mentioned resettlement order. Order of the same court dated July 7, 1971, granting defendants’ motion to vacate their default as to physically examining plaintiff and to allow such examination, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, the facts alleged in support of defendants’ motion to vacate their default in physically examining plaintiff pursuant to her notice (22 NYCRR 672.1) did not establish a reasonable excuse for that default (Delgado v. Fogle, 32 A D 2d 85). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 20, 1971, resettling a prior order affirmed, without costs. No- opinion. Appeal from order of the same court dated July 28, 1971 dismissed as academic, without costs. That order was superseded by the above-mentioned resettlement order. Order of the same court dated July 7, 1971, granting defendants’ motion to vacate their default as to physically examining plaintiff and to allow such examination, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, the facts alleged in support of defendants’ motion to vacate their default in physically examining plaintiff pursuant to her notice (22 NYCRR 672.1) did not establish a reasonable excuse for that default (Delgado v. Fogle, 32 A D 2d 85). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 854, 331 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calza-v-visbal-nyappdiv-1972.