Trapani v. Ou Hai Zhu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trapani v. Ou Hai Zhu

286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8702

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 764 (Trapani v. Ou Hai Zhu) 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

Trapani v. Ou Hai Zhu, 286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 25, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 4, 2000, which dismissed the complaint upon his failure to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a note of issue and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate a prior order of the same court which dismissed the complaint (see, Flomenhaft v Baron, 281 AD2d 289). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, 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, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated September 25, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 4, 2000, which dismissed the complaint upon his failure to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a note of issue and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate a prior order of the same court which dismissed the complaint (see, Flomenhaft v Baron, 281 AD2d 289). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 764, 730 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trapani-v-ou-hai-zhu-nyappdiv-2001.