Vanoni v. Hilti, Inc.

46 A.D.2d 620, 359 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 620 (Vanoni v. Hilti, Inc.) 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
Vanoni v. Hilti, Inc., 46 A.D.2d 620, 359 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 28, 1974, granting plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the Trial Calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the complaint dismissed. Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 19, 1973, granting leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs and without disbursements. Prerequisite to restoration of a case to the Trial Calendar is a showing of both a valid excuse for default and a meritorious claim (cf. Mingis v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, 32 A D 2d 746; Ad Press Ltd. v. Environmental Enterprises, 41 A D 2d 636; Pell v. Button, 44 A D 2d 549). The affidavit submitted purporting to exhibit the merits of plaintiff’s case is deficient. It contains no “ fact ” other than that the tool being used by plaintiff exploded. No evidentiary facts are submitted indicating the possible success of plaintiff in imposing liability upon the defendant manufacturer. In addition, the office failures alleged, by plaintiff’s attorney are inadequate excuse for failure to timely move to vacate [621]*621the dismissal of the complaint (cf. Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25; Mingis v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, supra). In view of the disposition of this motion, the further appeal from the order granting leave to serve an amended complaint must be dismissed as academic. Concur — MeGivern, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Related

Casey v. Fuller Brush Co.
51 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.2d 620, 359 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanoni-v-hilti-inc-nyappdiv-1974.