DeStefano v. DeStefano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeStefano v. DeStefano

279 A.D.2d 500, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 500 (DeStefano v. DeStefano) 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

DeStefano v. DeStefano, 279 A.D.2d 500, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated July 28, 1999, which denied his motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs action was dismissed when he failed to appear at a compliance conference. A court will vacate such a default and restore a case to the calendar upon a showing of a meritorious cause of action, a justifiable excuse for the default, and the absence of willfulness (see, Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474; Brown v Ryder Truck Rental, 172 AD2d 477). The plaintiff failed to satisfy these elements. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated July 28, 1999, which denied his motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs action was dismissed when he failed to appear at a compliance conference. A court will vacate such a default and restore a case to the calendar upon a showing of a meritorious cause of action, a justifiable excuse for the default, and the absence of willfulness (see, Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474; Brown v Ryder Truck Rental, 172 AD2d 477). The plaintiff failed to satisfy these elements. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 500, 718 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/destefano-v-destefano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack