Khayat v. Gill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Khayat v. Gill

278 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12645

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 15 (Khayat v. Gill) 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

Khayat v. Gill, 278 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omanksy, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1999, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate the action’s dismissal and restore the case to the calendar on certain conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 5, 2000, withdrawn pursuant to the stipulation of the parties dated October 19, 2000.

Plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore the action, a meritorious case, a lack of prejudice to defendants, and the absence of an intent to abandon the matter (see, Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353). Taking the “ ‘over-all circumstances’ ” into account (Nicholos v Cashelard Rest., 249 AD2d 187, 190), the appealed order constituted a proper exercise of discretion. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach 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 Omanksy, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1999, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate the action’s dismissal and restore the case to the calendar on certain conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 5, 2000, withdrawn pursuant to the stipulation of the parties dated October 19, 2000.

Plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore the action, a meritorious case, a lack of prejudice to defendants, and the absence of an intent to abandon the matter (see, Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353). Taking the “ ‘over-all circumstances’ ” into account (Nicholos v Cashelard Rest., 249 AD2d 187, 190), the appealed order constituted a proper exercise of discretion. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 15, 716 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khayat-v-gill-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack