Watson v. Starrett City, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Starrett City, Inc.

246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 591 (Watson v. Starrett City, 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

Watson v. Starrett City, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Starrett City, Inc. and Yakov Vishnevsky appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), entered June 11, 1997, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate their default in complying with a conditional order of preclusion, and [592]*592precluded the defendant Yakov Vishnevsky from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to vacate their default in complying with the prior conditional order of preclusion. The appellants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their default. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, 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 defendants Starrett City, Inc. and Yakov Vishnevsky appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), entered June 11, 1997, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate their default in complying with a conditional order of preclusion, and [592]*592precluded the defendant Yakov Vishnevsky from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to vacate their default in complying with the prior conditional order of preclusion. The appellants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their default. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 591, 667 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-starrett-city-inc-nyappdiv-1998.