DeFazio v. Berley Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeFazio v. Berley Realty Corp.

259 A.D.2d 266, 686 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2308

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 266 (DeFazio v. Berley Realty Corp.) 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

DeFazio v. Berley Realty Corp., 259 A.D.2d 266, 686 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew and upon renewal to vacate a prior order entered upon their default granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew (see, Silverman v Leucadia Inc., 159 AD2d 254). In any event, on the merits, plaintiffs failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for their default or that their claim was meritorious (see, Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assocs., 232 AD2d 275). Plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit, containing little else but conclusory allegations, failed to make a sufficient showing that the alleged assault was foreseeable, or that it was proximately caused by some breach by defendants of a duty owed by them to plaintiffs (compare., Bonano v S.Z. Realty Corp., 256 AD2d 268). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew and upon renewal to vacate a prior order entered upon their default granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew (see, Silverman v Leucadia Inc., 159 AD2d 254). In any event, on the merits, plaintiffs failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for their default or that their claim was meritorious (see, Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assocs., 232 AD2d 275). Plaintiffs’ affidavit of merit, containing little else but conclusory allegations, failed to make a sufficient showing that the alleged assault was foreseeable, or that it was proximately caused by some breach by defendants of a duty owed by them to plaintiffs (compare., Bonano v S.Z. Realty Corp., 256 AD2d 268). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 266, 686 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defazio-v-berley-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack