Rodriguez v. Bangladesh Muslim Center, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Bangladesh Muslim Center, Inc.

283 A.D.2d 416, 723 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 416 (Rodriguez v. Bangladesh Muslim Center, 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

Rodriguez v. Bangladesh Muslim Center, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 416, 723 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 12, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against it upon its default in answering, and denied its cross motion to vacate its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s cross motion. The defendant failed to adequately demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action (see, Dreiner v Consolidated Edison Co., 251 AD2d 24; Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated May 12, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against it upon its default in answering, and denied its cross motion to vacate its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s cross motion. The defendant failed to adequately demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action (see, Dreiner v Consolidated Edison Co., 251 AD2d 24; Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 416, 723 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-bangladesh-muslim-center-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack