Guang Jing Chen v. Goldstein

246 A.D.2d 407, 667 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 266
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 407 (Guang Jing Chen v. Goldstein) 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
Guang Jing Chen v. Goldstein, 246 A.D.2d 407, 667 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered November 12, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue a prior order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 on default, and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order, unanimously modified, on the law, to deem plaintiffs motion as one to vacate his default, and, so considered, the motion denied and the order otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We credit plaintiffs attorney’s representation that he never received defendants’ amended CPLR 3126 notice of motion, necessitated by some unspecified clerical mishap that prevented defendants’ first motion for that relief, admittedly received by plaintiffs attorney, from being placed on the court’s motion calendar. Nevertheless, we sustain the dismissal of complaint since plaintiff fails to offer a reasonable excuse for his noncompliance with defendants’ notices of physical examination. The willful and contumacious character of this noncompliance can be inferred from plaintiffs disappearance and failure to keep his attorney informed of his whereabouts for at least [408]*408the 11-month period between the attorney’s receipt of the notices of physical examination and the date plaintiff was located, more than three months after the CPLR 3126 motion had been granted on default (see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp., 162 AD2d 259). Nor does plaintiff’s attorney show that his efforts to locate plaintiff during this period were diligent. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Related

Garcia v. Roopnarine
18 A.D.3d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Florestal v. Little Flower Children's Services
9 A.D.3d 348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Palermo v. County of Nassau
266 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 407, 667 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guang-jing-chen-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1998.