Hoenig v. Stetefeldt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoenig v. Stetefeldt

127 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43121

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 632 (Hoenig v. Stetefeldt) 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

Hoenig v. Stetefeldt, 127 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated May 6, 1986, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents except for Kanaje Corporation.

The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. This was the second time the action was stricken from the calendar on the plaintiff’s default in appearance and counsel admittedly did not even check on the status of the case until more than a year after the second time it was marked off. No reasonable excuse has been established for this continuing neglect of a case which was commenced over 10 years ago. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated May 6, 1986, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents except for Kanaje Corporation.

The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. This was the second time the action was stricken from the calendar on the plaintiff’s default in appearance and counsel admittedly did not even check on the status of the case until more than a year after the second time it was marked off. No reasonable excuse has been established for this continuing neglect of a case which was commenced over 10 years ago. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoenig-v-stetefeldt-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack