James v. Caraballo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James v. Caraballo

283 A.D.2d 460, 724 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5014

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 460 (James v. Caraballo) 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

James v. Caraballo, 283 A.D.2d 460, 724 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [461]*461personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated January 24, 2001, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Carter Bros. Automobile Repairs, Inc., upon its failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to submit the requisite proof of the facts constituting the claim as is required pursuant to CPLR 3215 (e) (see, Levi v Oberlander, 144 AD2d 546). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the issues of excusable default and the presence or absence of a meritorious defense (see, Gerhardt v Salacqua Contr. Co., 181 AD2d 719). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 [461]*461personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated January 24, 2001, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Carter Bros. Automobile Repairs, Inc., upon its failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to submit the requisite proof of the facts constituting the claim as is required pursuant to CPLR 3215 (e) (see, Levi v Oberlander, 144 AD2d 546). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the issues of excusable default and the presence or absence of a meritorious defense (see, Gerhardt v Salacqua Contr. Co., 181 AD2d 719). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 460, 724 N.Y.S.2d 634, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-caraballo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack