Jan v. Aman, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jan v. Aman, Inc.

203 A.D.2d 329, 612 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3710

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 329 (Jan v. Aman, Inc.) 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

Jan v. Aman, Inc., 203 A.D.2d 329, 612 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated June 30, 1992, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 18, 1992, entered upon his default in appearing for argument of his prior motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion (see, Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414; I.J. Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484). Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated June 30, 1992, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 18, 1992, entered upon his default in appearing for argument of his prior motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion (see, Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414; I.J. Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484). Mangano, P. J., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 329, 612 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jan-v-aman-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack