Sandoval v. Sodano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandoval v. Sodano

147 A.D.2d 627, 538 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 627 (Sandoval v. Sodano) 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

Sandoval v. Sodano, 147 A.D.2d 627, 538 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated July 15, 1987, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was marked off the Trial Calendar in December 1983 when the infant plaintiff and his father failed to appear and could not be located. Indeed, the father deliberately concealed their whereabouts from counsel until sometime in November of 1986. Even if we were to insulate the infant plaintiff from the consequences of his father’s acts in secreting [628]*628him, the absence of any affidavit of merit compelled the denial of the plaintiffs renewed application to vacate his default and restore this case to the Trial Calendar (see, Amendolare v Piontkowski, 118 AD2d 529). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Spatt and Balletta, 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, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated July 15, 1987, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was marked off the Trial Calendar in December 1983 when the infant plaintiff and his father failed to appear and could not be located. Indeed, the father deliberately concealed their whereabouts from counsel until sometime in November of 1986. Even if we were to insulate the infant plaintiff from the consequences of his father’s acts in secreting [628]*628him, the absence of any affidavit of merit compelled the denial of the plaintiffs renewed application to vacate his default and restore this case to the Trial Calendar (see, Amendolare v Piontkowski, 118 AD2d 529). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 627, 538 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandoval-v-sodano-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack