Padawer v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padawer v. Shapiro

174 A.D.2d 714

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

DecidedJune 24, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 714 (Padawer v. Shapiro) 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

Padawer v. Shapiro, 174 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated December 6, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 13, 1990, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 13, 1990, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 6, 1989, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order of preclusion which dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the three-year default in serving a bill of particulars and that he had a meritorious cause of action (see, White v Leonard, 140 AD2d 518; La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, 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 (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated December 6, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 13, 1990, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 13, 1990, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 6, 1989, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order of preclusion which dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the three-year default in serving a bill of particulars and that he had a meritorious cause of action (see, White v Leonard, 140 AD2d 518; La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padawer-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack