Kao v. Willig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kao v. Willig

9 A.D.3d 448, 779 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012

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

DecidedJuly 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 448 (Kao v. Willig) 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

Kao v. Willig, 9 A.D.3d 448, 779 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Skelos, J.), dated August 18, 2003; which, inter alia, denied her motion to vacate [449]*449an order of the same court dated February 28, 2003, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon her default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the order entered on her default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Skelos, J.), dated August 18, 2003; which, inter alia, denied her motion to vacate [449]*449an order of the same court dated February 28, 2003, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon her default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the order entered on her default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 448, 779 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kao-v-willig-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack