Katims v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katims v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

55 A.D.3d 559, 864 N.Y.S.2d 318

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 559 (Katims v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.) 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

Katims v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 55 A.D.3d 559, 864 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to recover damages for breach of contract or warranty, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, [560]*560dated July 26, 2007, which affirmed an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District, dated May 31, 2006, granting the motion of the defendants DaimlerChrysler Corp. and DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, dated August 2, 2005, entered upon their default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by the Justices of the Appellate Term in their order dated July 26, 2007 (see Katims v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51516[U] [2007]). The plaintiffs remaining contentions, which were not addressed in that order, are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

an action to recover damages for breach of contract or warranty, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, [560]*560dated July 26, 2007, which affirmed an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District, dated May 31, 2006, granting the motion of the defendants DaimlerChrysler Corp. and DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, dated August 2, 2005, entered upon their default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by the Justices of the Appellate Term in their order dated July 26, 2007 (see Katims v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51516[U] [2007]). The plaintiffs remaining contentions, which were not addressed in that order, are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 559, 864 N.Y.S.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katims-v-daimlerchrysler-corp-nyappdiv-2008.