Kerrigan v. Textile Deliveries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerrigan v. Textile Deliveries, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 376, 725 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6105

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 376 (Kerrigan v. Textile Deliveries, 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

Kerrigan v. Textile Deliveries, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 376, 725 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 15, 2000, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate his default in appearing for jury selection, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 6, 2000, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 15, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 6, 2000, made upon re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 6, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

To establish entitlement to vacatur of a default, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, Cooper v P & T Gen. Contr. Corp., 260 AD2d 423; Szilaski v Aphrodite Constr. Co., 247 AD2d 532; Betancourth v Pacheco, 232 AD2d 442). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422; Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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 plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 15, 2000, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate his default in appearing for jury selection, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 6, 2000, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 15, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 6, 2000, made upon re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 6, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

To establish entitlement to vacatur of a default, the movant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, Cooper v P & T Gen. Contr. Corp., 260 AD2d 423; Szilaski v Aphrodite Constr. Co., 247 AD2d 532; Betancourth v Pacheco, 232 AD2d 442). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422; Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 376, 725 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerrigan-v-textile-deliveries-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack