Rogoff v. Two Grace Court Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogoff v. Two Grace Court Associates

201 A.D.2d 637, 609 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1477

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 1994·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 16, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the matter to the trial calendar, treating it as a motion to vacate the dismissal of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion (see generally, Sheehan v Hollywood, 112 AD2d 211). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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, Kings County (Held, J.), dated July 16, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the matter to the trial calendar, treating it as a motion to vacate the dismissal of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion (see generally, Sheehan v Hollywood, 112 AD2d 211). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Rogoff v. Two Grace Court Associates, 201 A.D.2d 637, 609 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 637 (Rogoff v. Two Grace Court Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related