Mendoza v. Schlossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. Schlossman

74 A.D.2d 564, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.2d 564 (Mendoza v. Schlossman) 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

Mendoza v. Schlossman, 74 A.D.2d 564, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a legal malpractice action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 16, 1979, as (1) denied his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him, and (2) denied his motion seeking disclosure as to plaintiff’s underlying claim against the New York City Transit Authority. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to vacate the default in light of defendant’s inability to provide an acceptable excuse for his default. In affirming the denial of defendant’s request for further discovery, we note plaintiff’s concession that he will turn over his hospital records to defendant and will submit to a physical examination. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a legal malpractice action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 16, 1979, as (1) denied his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him, and (2) denied his motion seeking disclosure as to plaintiff’s underlying claim against the New York City Transit Authority. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to vacate the default in light of defendant’s inability to provide an acceptable excuse for his default. In affirming the denial of defendant’s request for further discovery, we note plaintiff’s concession that he will turn over his hospital records to defendant and will submit to a physical examination. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 564, 424 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-schlossman-nyappdiv-1980.