Krisztin v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krisztin v. State

34 A.D.3d 753, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 753 (Krisztin 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

Krisztin v. State, 34 A.D.3d 753, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated September 2, 2005, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated November 29, 2004, granting, upon his default in appearing at a scheduled conference, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to 22 NYCRR 206.10 (g).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In moving to vacate the order granting the defendant’s mo[754]*754tion to dismiss his claim, the claimant was required to establish both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Blumberg v State of New York, 208 AD2d 581 [1994]). The claimant failed to demonstrate that he has a potentially meritorious claim. Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion. Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, 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 personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated September 2, 2005, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated November 29, 2004, granting, upon his default in appearing at a scheduled conference, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to 22 NYCRR 206.10 (g).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In moving to vacate the order granting the defendant’s mo[754]*754tion to dismiss his claim, the claimant was required to establish both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious claim (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Blumberg v State of New York, 208 AD2d 581 [1994]). The claimant failed to demonstrate that he has a potentially meritorious claim. Accordingly, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the claimant’s motion. Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 753, 823 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krisztin-v-state-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack