Rosario v. Guthrie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Guthrie

234 A.D.2d 3, 650 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12267

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 3 (Rosario v. Guthrie) 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

Rosario v. Guthrie, 234 A.D.2d 3, 650 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 3, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint which had been granted for failure to comply with court ordered discovery, and order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about May 8, 1996, which, inter alia, denied the third-party defendant’s motion to vacate the November 3, 1995 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The orders were appropriate exercises of discretion. Third-party defendant did not demonstrate prejudice (see, Forte v Cities Serv. Oil Co., 195 AD2d 805, 807), plaintiff’s delay in providing discovery was minimal and not willful, and plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for the default and evidence of a meritorious action. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 3, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint which had been granted for failure to comply with court ordered discovery, and order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about May 8, 1996, which, inter alia, denied the third-party defendant’s motion to vacate the November 3, 1995 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The orders were appropriate exercises of discretion. Third-party defendant did not demonstrate prejudice (see, Forte v Cities Serv. Oil Co., 195 AD2d 805, 807), plaintiff’s delay in providing discovery was minimal and not willful, and plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for the default and evidence of a meritorious action. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 3, 650 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-guthrie-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack