Catanzaro v. Wallenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catanzaro v. Wallenstein

7 A.D.3d 479, 775 N.Y.S.2d 572

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 479 (Catanzaro v. Wallenstein) 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

Catanzaro v. Wallenstein, 7 A.D.3d 479, 775 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated January 6, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court dated September 10, 2002, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, upon her default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A plaintiff attempting to vacate a default in opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Vaval v Malone, 2 AD3d 839 [2003]; Katsnelson v ELRAC, Inc., 304 AD2d 619 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, 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 legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated January 6, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court dated September 10, 2002, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, upon her default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A plaintiff attempting to vacate a default in opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Vaval v Malone, 2 AD3d 839 [2003]; Katsnelson v ELRAC, Inc., 304 AD2d 619 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 479, 775 N.Y.S.2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catanzaro-v-wallenstein-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack