Stabile v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stabile v. Gomez

280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 541 (Stabile v. Gomez) 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

Stabile v. Gomez, 280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate their default in appearing at a conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to ap[542]*542pear at a conference (see, 22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). The court properly denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the default in appearing at the conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Valente v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 252 AD2d 580; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate their default in appearing at a conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to ap[542]*542pear at a conference (see, 22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). The court properly denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the default in appearing at the conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Valente v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 252 AD2d 580; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stabile-v-gomez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack