Rivas v. Expansion Group Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivas v. Expansion Group Inc.

306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7317

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

DecidedJune 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 188 (Rivas v. Expansion Group Inc.) 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

Rivas v. Expansion Group Inc., 306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[189]*189The action was properly dismissed upon plaintiffs’ failure to attend a pre-note of issue conference (22 NYCRR 202.27), and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal was properly denied for failure to show a meritorious cause of action (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Polir Constr. v Etingin, 297 AD2d 509, 511-512 [2002]). Concur — Nardelli,' J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 31, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[189]*189The action was properly dismissed upon plaintiffs’ failure to attend a pre-note of issue conference (22 NYCRR 202.27), and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal was properly denied for failure to show a meritorious cause of action (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Polir Constr. v Etingin, 297 AD2d 509, 511-512 [2002]). Concur — Nardelli,' J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivas-v-expansion-group-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack