Gore v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gore v. New York City Housing Authority

300 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 541 (Gore v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Gore v. New York City Housing Authority, 300 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated May 2, 2002, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate its default in complying with so much of an order of the same court, dated May 4, 2001, as precluded it from producing any witnesses at trial if it failed to produce a witness for a deposition before a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310). Since the appellant failed to sustain its burden on the motion, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated May 2, 2002, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate its default in complying with so much of an order of the same court, dated May 4, 2001, as precluded it from producing any witnesses at trial if it failed to produce a witness for a deposition before a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310). Since the appellant failed to sustain its burden on the motion, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 541, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gore-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack