El v. Schertz
This text of 33 A.D.3d 585 (El v. Schertz) 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.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J), dated December 7, 2004, which denied her motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance dated December 12, 2003, and to restore the action to the trial calendar with respect to the defendant Mark Klutsman.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance based on unilateral mistake (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150; G&S Clam Bar v Melillo, 302 AD2d 492 [2003]; Karapetyan v Underwood, 287 AD2d 547 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion. Adams, J.P, Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
33 A.D.3d 585, 821 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/el-v-schertz-nyappdiv-2006.