High v. Coletti

143 A.D.2d 810, 533 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 810 (High v. Coletti) 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
High v. Coletti, 143 A.D.2d 810, 533 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered June 24, 1987, which granted, upon default, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 (c) to preclude her from offering evidence for failure to serve a bill of particulars and thereupon dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

No appeal lies from an order made upon the default, of the aggrieved party (CPLR 5511). The proper procedure would have been for the plaintiff to move to open her default and to vacate the order entered June 24, 1987, and if necessary, appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate (see, Grober v Busigo, 133 AD2d 389; Imor v Imor, 114 AD2d 552; Calvagno v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 741).

On appeal, the plaintiff seeks review of an order which granted her motion "for leave to reargue”, the motion to preclude, and thereupon adhered to the original determination. No notice of appeal from that order has been included in the record. Since no appeal lies from the order entered June 24, 1987, the plaintiff may not have review of the subsequent order pursuant to CPLR 5517 (b). However, even if we were to have considered the merits of the order made on reargument, we would have affirmed because no affidavit of merit or its equivalent was submitted with the plaintiff’s motion papers (see, Hauser v Nassau Country Club, 130 AD2d 545; see also, Onorio v Miller, 143 AD2d 80; Oversby v Linde Div., 121 AD2d 373; cf., Saleh v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851, rearg denied 61 NY2d 759). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Smart Realty & Mgt. LLC v. Celona
2025 NY Slip Op 34402(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Matter of Zelaya v. Cervas
2019 NY Slip Op 8680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Muniz v. Muschette
305 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Hines v. New York City Transit Authority
264 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Circelli v. Goodman
262 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Green Point Savings Bank v. 794 Utica Avenue Realty Corp.
261 A.D.2d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Concord Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Sabbeth
204 A.D.2d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Hereida v. Hereida
203 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kutin v. Advanced Medical Imaging Associates, P.C.
201 A.D.2d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 A.D.2d 810, 533 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/high-v-coletti-nyappdiv-1988.