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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

269 A.D.2d 557 (Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related