Chase v. Scavuzzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase v. Scavuzzo

251 A.D.2d 281, 672 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6323

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 281 (Chase v. Scavuzzo) 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

Chase v. Scavuzzo, 251 A.D.2d 281, 672 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover attorney’s fees, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 23, 1997, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (b), or, in the alternative, to restore the case to the trial calendar.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that the action was not barred by 22 NYCRR 691.10 (b).

Furthermore, under these circumstances where the defendants failed to offer a valid excuse for their failure to appear for trial on April 2, 1997, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ alternative relief of restoring the case to the trial calendar (see, Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d 635; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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 attorney’s fees, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 23, 1997, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (b), or, in the alternative, to restore the case to the trial calendar.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court that the action was not barred by 22 NYCRR 691.10 (b).

Furthermore, under these circumstances where the defendants failed to offer a valid excuse for their failure to appear for trial on April 2, 1997, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ alternative relief of restoring the case to the trial calendar (see, Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d 635; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 281, 672 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-scavuzzo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack