Katsnelson v. ELRAC, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katsnelson v. ELRAC, Inc.

304 A.D.2d 619, 757 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018

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

DecidedApril 14, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 619 (Katsnelson v. ELRAC, 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

Katsnelson v. ELRAC, Inc., 304 A.D.2d 619, 757 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Carson, J.), dated [620]*620October 17, 2001, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated June 27, 2001, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiffs had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action (see Melo v Pagano, 297 AD2d 717 [2002]; see also Burns v Casale, 276 AD2d 734 [2000]). As the plaintiffs did neither, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate their default. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Carson, J.), dated [620]*620October 17, 2001, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated June 27, 2001, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiffs had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action (see Melo v Pagano, 297 AD2d 717 [2002]; see also Burns v Casale, 276 AD2d 734 [2000]). As the plaintiffs did neither, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate their default. Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 619, 757 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katsnelson-v-elrac-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack