Trapani v. United Exposition Service Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trapani v. United Exposition Service Co.

192 A.D.2d 339, 596 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3484

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

DecidedApril 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 339 (Trapani v. United Exposition Service Co.) 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. United Exposition Service Co., 192 A.D.2d 339, 596 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion to "restore [the] case to [the] calendar,” unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default more than a year after it occurred when plaintiff failed to appear and contest the dismissal of his case was properly denied. Plaintiff failed both to reasonably explain the recurring delays attributed to both him and his counsel and demonstrate the merit of his cause of action. Additionally, the long delay and the failure to complete discovery serve to prejudice the defense of this action. Accordingly, the IAS Court was well within its discretion in denying the instant motion (see, Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 AD2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 874). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 6, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion to "restore [the] case to [the] calendar,” unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default more than a year after it occurred when plaintiff failed to appear and contest the dismissal of his case was properly denied. Plaintiff failed both to reasonably explain the recurring delays attributed to both him and his counsel and demonstrate the merit of his cause of action. Additionally, the long delay and the failure to complete discovery serve to prejudice the defense of this action. Accordingly, the IAS Court was well within its discretion in denying the instant motion (see, Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 AD2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 874). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 339, 596 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trapani-v-united-exposition-service-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack