Jiron v. China Buddhist Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jiron v. China Buddhist Ass'n

251 A.D.2d 294, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 294 (Jiron v. China Buddhist Ass'n) 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

Jiron v. China Buddhist Ass'n, 251 A.D.2d 294, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant China Buddhist Association appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 25, 1997, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate so much of an order of the same court, dated March 12, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Grand Pillar Construction Co. which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellant’s cross claims against Grand Pillar Construction Co. upon the appellant’s default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the prior order entered on its default since the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Fierro v Fierro, 211 AD2d 676). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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 personal injuries, the defendant China Buddhist Association appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 25, 1997, which denied its motion, in effect, to vacate so much of an order of the same court, dated March 12, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Grand Pillar Construction Co. which was for summary judgment dismissing the appellant’s cross claims against Grand Pillar Construction Co. upon the appellant’s default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the prior order entered on its default since the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Fierro v Fierro, 211 AD2d 676). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 294, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiron-v-china-buddhist-assn-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack