Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School District

267 A.D.2d 290, 700 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 290 (Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School District) 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
Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School District, 267 A.D.2d 290, 700 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries-, the plaintiff, Roger Piacentini, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated December 17, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated October 21, 1997, dismissing the complaint on the ground that he had failed to appear for a preliminary conference.

[291]*291Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate the order dismissing the complaint, the appellant had to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default and establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; McNeil v Milstein, 240 AD2d 549; Martinez v Otis El. Co., 213 AD2d 523). The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default (see, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, supra; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). The record reveals an overall lack of diligence by the appellant in prosecuting his claim, a pattern of willful default, and neglect. No reasonable excuse was offered either for his failure to appear at the preliminary conference or for the lengthy delay in bringing the motion to vacate his default (see, Yepez v Damico, 239 AD2d 412; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Martinez v Otis El. Co., supra; Gannon v Johnson Scale Co., 189 AD2d 1052). Furthermore, the appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence of the merit of his underlying claim. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bank of New York Mellon v. Slavin
54 Misc. 3d 311 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Mazzio v. Jennings
128 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
150 Centreville, LLC v. Lin Associates Architects, PC
39 Misc. 3d 513 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Marrero v. Crystal Nails
77 A.D.3d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Brown v. Vanchieri
64 A.D.3d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Associated Mutual Insurance v. Kipp's Arcadian II, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Fujah v. V-M Auto Refinishing Corp.
192 Misc. 2d 170 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
Komlosi v. State
288 A.D.2d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Titan Realty Corp. v. Schlem
283 A.D.2d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Parker v. City of New York
272 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 A.D.2d 290, 700 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piacentini-v-mineola-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1999.