Roessler v. Caruso & Caruso, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roessler v. Caruso & Caruso, P. C.

262 A.D.2d 627, 691 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7638

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 627 (Roessler v. Caruso & Caruso, P. C.) 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

Roessler v. Caruso & Caruso, P. C., 262 A.D.2d 627, 691 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), dated July 15, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated September [628]*62824, 1997, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon his default in responding to the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), since the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see also, Yellow Book Co. v Helman, 236 AD2d 468; Jacobwitz & Gubits v Duffy, 236 AD2d 446; General Elec. Capital Auto Lease v Terzi, 232 AD2d 449). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), dated July 15, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated September [628]*62824, 1997, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon his default in responding to the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), since the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see also, Yellow Book Co. v Helman, 236 AD2d 468; Jacobwitz & Gubits v Duffy, 236 AD2d 446; General Elec. Capital Auto Lease v Terzi, 232 AD2d 449). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 627, 691 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roessler-v-caruso-caruso-p-c-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack