Santos v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santos v. New York City Transit Authority

268 A.D.2d 518, 701 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 518 (Santos v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Santos v. New York City Transit Authority, 268 A.D.2d 518, 701 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated January 8, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated May 26, 1998, as dismissed his complaint based upon his failure to appear for a hearing pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated January 8, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated May 26, 1998, as dismissed his complaint based upon his failure to appear for a hearing pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, Perez v Astoria Gen. Hosp., 260 AD2d 457). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 518, 701 N.Y.S.2d 646, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack