Radish v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Radish v. Rodriguez

31 A.D.3d 524, 817 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 524 (Radish v. Rodriguez) 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

Radish v. Rodriguez, 31 A.D.3d 524, 817 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated September 14, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon their default in answering, and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[525]*525Given the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of a viable cause of action, the court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendants’ default (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637 [2005]), and granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3215 [c]; Piccirillo v Greenspan, 291 AD2d 486, 486-487 [2002]; Akler v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 257 AD2d 640, 641 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated September 14, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon their default in answering, and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[525]*525Given the plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of a viable cause of action, the court should have denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendants’ default (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637 [2005]), and granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3215 [c]; Piccirillo v Greenspan, 291 AD2d 486, 486-487 [2002]; Akler v Booth Mem. Med. Ctr., 257 AD2d 640, 641 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 524, 817 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radish-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack