Komlosi v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Komlosi v. State

288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 188 (Komlosi v. State) 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

Komlosi v. State, 288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Read, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court (Blinder, J.), dated August 17, 1995, dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[189]*189The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his claim (see, 22 NYCRR 206.15; CPLR 5015 [a]; Court of Claims Act § 19). The claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to vacate the default (see, Seven Acre Wood St. Assocs. v Wood, 286 AD2d 432; Piacentini v Mineola Union Free School Dist., 267 AD2d 290; City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v Garg, 250 AD2d 991; Yepez v Damico, 239 AD2d 412). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Read, J.), dated June 22, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court (Blinder, J.), dated August 17, 1995, dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[189]*189The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his claim (see, 22 NYCRR 206.15; CPLR 5015 [a]; Court of Claims Act § 19). The claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to vacate the default (see, Seven Acre Wood St. Assocs. v Wood, 286 AD2d 432; Piacentini v Mineola Union Free School Dist., 267 AD2d 290; City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency v Garg, 250 AD2d 991; Yepez v Damico, 239 AD2d 412). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 188, 732 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komlosi-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack