Eaves v. Ocana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eaves v. Ocana

122 A.D.2d 18, 504 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59089

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 18 (Eaves v. Ocana) 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

Eaves v. Ocana, 122 A.D.2d 18, 504 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Miguel Ocana appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated September 11, 1985, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), for an order dismissing the complaint as against him.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against the defendant Miguel Ocana.

In order to defeat a motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), an opposing plaintiff is required to show both a reasonable and acceptable excuse for the delay and that his cause has merit (Finan v Queens Tr. Corp., 100 AD2d 951). Since no such showing was made, it was error for Special Term to deny the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him (cf. Woodward v City of New York, 119 AD2d 749). Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Miguel Ocana appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated September 11, 1985, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), for an order dismissing the complaint as against him.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against the defendant Miguel Ocana.

In order to defeat a motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), an opposing plaintiff is required to show both a reasonable and acceptable excuse for the delay and that his cause has merit (Finan v Queens Tr. Corp., 100 AD2d 951). Since no such showing was made, it was error for Special Term to deny the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him (cf. Woodward v City of New York, 119 AD2d 749). Weinstein, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 18, 504 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaves-v-ocana-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack