Novoa v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novoa v. Board of Education

69 A.D.2d 814, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11461

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

DecidedApril 2, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 814 (Novoa v. Board of Education) 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

Novoa v. Board of Education, 69 A.D.2d 814, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 15, 1977, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to vacate its default in appearing and answering and (2) a further order of the same court dated March 14, 1978, which denied their motion to resettle the order entered November 15, 1977 (see Farmer’s Nat. Bank v Underwood, 12 App Div 269). Order entered November 15, 1977, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that the office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York pay the sum of $500 to the plaintiffs within 20 days after service upon the defendant of a copy of the order to be entered hereon together with notice of entry thereof; in the event such condition is not complied with, order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements and motion denied. Order dated March 14, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the defendant’s default in appearing and answering, which was occasioned by the neglect of its attorney, the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, should not have been vacated unconditionally (see Moran v Rynar, 39 AD2d 718). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, 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., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 15, 1977, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to vacate its default in appearing and answering and (2) a further order of the same court dated March 14, 1978, which denied their motion to resettle the order entered November 15, 1977 (see Farmer’s Nat. Bank v Underwood, 12 App Div 269). Order entered November 15, 1977, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that the office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York pay the sum of $500 to the plaintiffs within 20 days after service upon the defendant of a copy of the order to be entered hereon together with notice of entry thereof; in the event such condition is not complied with, order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements and motion denied. Order dated March 14, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the defendant’s default in appearing and answering, which was occasioned by the neglect of its attorney, the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, should not have been vacated unconditionally (see Moran v Rynar, 39 AD2d 718). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 814, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novoa-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack