D'Angelo v. Downtown Athletic Club

244 A.D.2d 180, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11399

This text of 244 A.D.2d 180 (D'Angelo v. Downtown Athletic Club) 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
D'Angelo v. Downtown Athletic Club, 244 A.D.2d 180, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), [181]*181entered on or about November 13, 1996, which vacated a preclusion order on condition that plaintiffs counsel pay $250 in costs to defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in vacating the terms of the parties’ stipulated preclusion order in the interest of resolving the case on its merits. Defendant was not prejudiced by the one-month delay, plaintiffs excuse was reasonable, and the verified complaint and bill of particulars sufficed, under the circumstances, to demonstrate the merits of the action (Shrader v Monforte, 212 AD2d 874; Schoffel v Velez, 118 AD2d 492).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Schoffel v. Velez
118 A.D.2d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Shrader v. Monforte
212 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 180, 664 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-downtown-athletic-club-nyappdiv-1997.