Moss v. Kalodemas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moss v. Kalodemas

73 A.D.2d 592, 422 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 592 (Moss v. Kalodemas) 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

Moss v. Kalodemas, 73 A.D.2d 592, 422 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., in which an order had been entered, upon defendant’s default, granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar, defendant appeals.(1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 6, 1979, which denied her motion for "reargument” of the order vacating the dismissal (the motion was, in fact, one to vacate defendant’s default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion) and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated April 6, 1979, as, upon granting reargument of the March 6, 1979 order and vacating said order, denied her motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion. Appeal from the order dated March 6, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was vacated by the order dated April 6, 1979. Order dated April 6, 1979 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the order granting the plaintiffs’ motion, dated December 7, 1978, is vacated, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar is denied. Defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal should have been granted considering the fact that plaintiffs’ motion papers were mailed to an address long since abandoned by defendant’s attorneys. On the merits, plaintiffs’ [593]*593motion should be denied as their eight years’ delay in moving to vacate the dismissal cannot be excused by the asserted confusion in their attorney’s files resulting from two burglaries and inability to secure clerical help (see Tepperman v Peri, 29 AD2d 893). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, 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., in which an order had been entered, upon defendant’s default, granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar, defendant appeals.(1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 6, 1979, which denied her motion for "reargument” of the order vacating the dismissal (the motion was, in fact, one to vacate defendant’s default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion) and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated April 6, 1979, as, upon granting reargument of the March 6, 1979 order and vacating said order, denied her motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion. Appeal from the order dated March 6, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was vacated by the order dated April 6, 1979. Order dated April 6, 1979 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the order granting the plaintiffs’ motion, dated December 7, 1978, is vacated, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar is denied. Defendant’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal should have been granted considering the fact that plaintiffs’ motion papers were mailed to an address long since abandoned by defendant’s attorneys. On the merits, plaintiffs’ [593]*593motion should be denied as their eight years’ delay in moving to vacate the dismissal cannot be excused by the asserted confusion in their attorney’s files resulting from two burglaries and inability to secure clerical help (see Tepperman v Peri, 29 AD2d 893). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 592, 422 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-kalodemas-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack