Kozlow v. Nicodemus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kozlow v. Nicodemus

242 A.D.2d 285, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8261

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 285 (Kozlow v. Nicodemus) 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

Kozlow v. Nicodemus, 242 A.D.2d 285, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered June 11, 1996, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 8, 1995, dismissing his complaint based on his default in appearing for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his complaint. The plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear for the scheduled trial or sufficient evidence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Martinez v Otis El. Co., 213 AD2d 523; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Brown v Ryder Truck Rental, 172 AD2d 477). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered June 11, 1996, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 8, 1995, dismissing his complaint based on his default in appearing for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment dismissing his complaint. The plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear for the scheduled trial or sufficient evidence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Martinez v Otis El. Co., 213 AD2d 523; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Brown v Ryder Truck Rental, 172 AD2d 477). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 285, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozlow-v-nicodemus-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack