Khavkin v. Green Park Essex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khavkin v. Green Park Essex, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12326

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 468 (Khavkin v. Green Park Essex, 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

Khavkin v. Green Park Essex, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety after the plaintiffs repeatedly ignored the court’s directives to have the plaintiff Lena Khavkin submit to a second physical examination, and to file a note of issue, and because the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at a pretrial conference. We further note that in May 1989, the parties were served with a copy of the proposed order dismissing the complaint, and the order was entered on September 18, 1989. The plaintiffs’ counsel received a copy of the order no later than November 3, 1989, and yet did not move to vacate it until the end of September 1990.

The plaintiffs have failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their default, or for the delay in moving to vacate the default, nor can they point to any concrete evidence that the appellants treated the action as ongoing after the complaint was dismissed (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem,. Hosp., 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014; cf., Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535). Accordingly, the order dismissing the complaint is reinstated. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety after the plaintiffs repeatedly ignored the court’s directives to have the plaintiff Lena Khavkin submit to a second physical examination, and to file a note of issue, and because the plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at a pretrial conference. We further note that in May 1989, the parties were served with a copy of the proposed order dismissing the complaint, and the order was entered on September 18, 1989. The plaintiffs’ counsel received a copy of the order no later than November 3, 1989, and yet did not move to vacate it until the end of September 1990.

The plaintiffs have failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their default, or for the delay in moving to vacate the default, nor can they point to any concrete evidence that the appellants treated the action as ongoing after the complaint was dismissed (see, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem,. Hosp., 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014; cf., Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535). Accordingly, the order dismissing the complaint is reinstated. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 468, 608 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khavkin-v-green-park-essex-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack