Valente v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valente v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 580 (Valente v. New York City Industrial Development Agency) 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

Valente v. New York City Industrial Development Agency, 252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 8, 1997, which denied his motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the parties failed to appear at a status conference, the Supreme Court marked the case off its calendar. Thereafter, the plaintiff waited approximately eight years to make the instant motion to restore. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a meritorious cause of action or a reasonable [581]*581excuse for his delay, we find that the Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 8, 1997, which denied his motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the parties failed to appear at a status conference, the Supreme Court marked the case off its calendar. Thereafter, the plaintiff waited approximately eight years to make the instant motion to restore. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a meritorious cause of action or a reasonable [581]*581excuse for his delay, we find that the Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 580, 675 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valente-v-new-york-city-industrial-development-agency-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack