Cousins v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cousins v. Grant

166 A.D.2d 494, 560 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 494 (Cousins v. Grant) 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

Cousins v. Grant, 166 A.D.2d 494, 560 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated April 7, 1989, which dismissed the complaint.

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

The plaintiffs have not shown a legally justifiable excuse for their failure to take proceedings against the defendant within one year after his default. In addition, there is no affidavit in the record containing an evidentiary showing that the cause of action against the defendant is meritorious. As such, the [495]*495court properly dismissed the complaint as abandoned (see, CPLR 3215 [c]; Myers v Slutsky, 139 AD2d 709; Chin v Hooker, 95 AD2d 790; Winkelman v H & S Beer & Soda Discounts, 91 AD2d 660). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated April 7, 1989, which dismissed the complaint.

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

The plaintiffs have not shown a legally justifiable excuse for their failure to take proceedings against the defendant within one year after his default. In addition, there is no affidavit in the record containing an evidentiary showing that the cause of action against the defendant is meritorious. As such, the [495]*495court properly dismissed the complaint as abandoned (see, CPLR 3215 [c]; Myers v Slutsky, 139 AD2d 709; Chin v Hooker, 95 AD2d 790; Winkelman v H & S Beer & Soda Discounts, 91 AD2d 660). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 494, 560 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cousins-v-grant-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack