Silva v. Heimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silva v. Heimer

15 A.D.3d 468, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1623

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 468 (Silva v. Heimer) 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

Silva v. Heimer, 15 A.D.3d 468, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated April 14, 2003, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated December 17, 2002, granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar “without opposition.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defense counsel’s “affirmation in opposition” dated November 7, 2002, submitted on the defendant’s motion, in effect, to vacate the order granting the plaintiff’s motion to restore, failed to set forth a meritorious basis for vacating the order granting the motion to restore. Schmidt, J.E, H. Miller, Ritter, Crane and Skelos, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated April 14, 2003, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated December 17, 2002, granting the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar “without opposition.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defense counsel’s “affirmation in opposition” dated November 7, 2002, submitted on the defendant’s motion, in effect, to vacate the order granting the plaintiff’s motion to restore, failed to set forth a meritorious basis for vacating the order granting the motion to restore. Schmidt, J.E, H. Miller, Ritter, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 468, 789 N.Y.S.2d 431, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silva-v-heimer-nyappdiv-2005.