Goetz-Haddad v. Worthman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goetz-Haddad v. Worthman

13 A.D.3d 337, 785 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14869

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 337 (Goetz-Haddad v. Worthman) 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

Goetz-Haddad v. Worthman, 13 A.D.3d 337, 785 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which denied his motion, purportedly pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his complaint because the rec[338]*338ord reveals that the dismissal of the complaint was correctly granted on statute of limitations grounds and was not granted on the plaintiffs default. H. Miller, J.R, Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, 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, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which denied his motion, purportedly pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his complaint because the rec[338]*338ord reveals that the dismissal of the complaint was correctly granted on statute of limitations grounds and was not granted on the plaintiffs default. H. Miller, J.R, Crane, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 337, 785 N.Y.S.2d 351, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goetz-haddad-v-worthman-nyappdiv-2004.