Karacostas v. Trinity Place Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karacostas v. Trinity Place Co.

294 A.D.2d 250, 741 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5421

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

DecidedMay 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 250 (Karacostas v. Trinity Place Co.) 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

Karacostas v. Trinity Place Co., 294 A.D.2d 250, 741 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 14, 2002, which, in an action for personal [251]*251injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to vacate his default on defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions, and, upon vacatur, denied the motion for disclosure sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The default was properly vacated upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for plaintiffs attorney’s failure to answer the calendar call of defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions, and a meritorious cause of action (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 2005). Sanctions were properly denied upon a showing that good-faith attempts by plaintiff to satisfy his post-note of issue, so-ordered disclosure stipulations were hampered by law office confusion as to defendant’s current attorney’s address, and competing claims of mailing and nonreceipt in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was no willful conduct justifying the drastic sanctions defendant seeks. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 14, 2002, which, in an action for personal [251]*251injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to vacate his default on defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions, and, upon vacatur, denied the motion for disclosure sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The default was properly vacated upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for plaintiffs attorney’s failure to answer the calendar call of defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions, and a meritorious cause of action (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 2005). Sanctions were properly denied upon a showing that good-faith attempts by plaintiff to satisfy his post-note of issue, so-ordered disclosure stipulations were hampered by law office confusion as to defendant’s current attorney’s address, and competing claims of mailing and nonreceipt in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was no willful conduct justifying the drastic sanctions defendant seeks. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 250, 741 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karacostas-v-trinity-place-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack