Montejo v. Espinal Grocery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montejo v. Espinal Grocery

286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 426 (Montejo v. Espinal Grocery) 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

Montejo v. Espinal Grocery, 286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate two orders of the same court, both dated October 15, 1999, granting the motion of the defendants Espinal Grocery and Simeon Espinal and the separate motion of the defendant Edna Williams for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, upon her default, inter alia, in appearing for oral argument.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate an order entered on default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her cause of action was meritorious. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 15, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate two orders of the same court, both dated October 15, 1999, granting the motion of the defendants Espinal Grocery and Simeon Espinal and the separate motion of the defendant Edna Williams for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, upon her default, inter alia, in appearing for oral argument.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate an order entered on default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her cause of action was meritorious. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montejo-v-espinal-grocery-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack