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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 2000·Published

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.

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

268 A.D.2d 518 (Santos v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related