Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, Inc.

269 A.D.2d 557, 704 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2121

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 557 (Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, Inc.) 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

Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 557, 704 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 24, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 14, 1998, dismissing their complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In order to obtain the relief which the plaintiffs requested, they were required to establish both a reasonable excuse for their defaults and a meritorious cause of action (see, Reilly v Syosset Hosp., 225 AD2d 602). The plaintiffs failed to establish reasonable excuses for their failure on two occasions to comply with the court’s discovery orders and to oppose entry of the judgment dismissing the complaint, and thus failed to satisfy the standard. Ritter, J. P;, Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 24, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 14, 1998, dismissing their complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

In order to obtain the relief which the plaintiffs requested, they were required to establish both a reasonable excuse for their defaults and a meritorious cause of action (see, Reilly v Syosset Hosp., 225 AD2d 602). The plaintiffs failed to establish reasonable excuses for their failure on two occasions to comply with the court’s discovery orders and to oppose entry of the judgment dismissing the complaint, and thus failed to satisfy the standard. Ritter, J. P;, Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 557, 704 N.Y.S.2d 821, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desena-v-486-henry-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack