Mitchel v. Miele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchel v. Miele

116 A.D.2d 635, 498 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51499

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 635 (Mitchel v. Miele) 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

Mitchel v. Miele, 116 A.D.2d 635, 498 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated November 21, 1984, which (1) denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) conditionally granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate their default in opposing a motion to preclude.

Order reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, defendant’s motion granted, plaintiffs’ cross motion denied, and complaint dismissed.

Plaintiffs made an insufficient showing of merit in support of their cross motion to vacate their default in opposing a motion to preclude. Accordingly, defendant’s motion should have been granted and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated November 21, 1984, which (1) denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) conditionally granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate their default in opposing a motion to preclude.

Order reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, defendant’s motion granted, plaintiffs’ cross motion denied, and complaint dismissed.

Plaintiffs made an insufficient showing of merit in support of their cross motion to vacate their default in opposing a motion to preclude. Accordingly, defendant’s motion should have been granted and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 635, 498 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchel-v-miele-nyappdiv-1986.