Wise v. Blue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wise v. Blue

289 A.D.2d 131, 734 N.Y.S.2d 172, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 131 (Wise v. Blue) 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

Wise v. Blue, 289 A.D.2d 131, 734 N.Y.S.2d 172, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered May 30, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Lillie Blue and Darrell Reaves to vacate a prior order denying their motion to strike the note of issue and directed plaintiffs to submit to physical examinations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in vacating its default order entered solely as a result of defendants’ failure to timely appear for oral argument (see, Vitiello v Mayrich Constr. Corp., 255 AD2d 182). Defendants provided a reasonable excuse for their “default” (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kramer v Edenwald Constr. Co., 261 AD2d 284) and demonstrated that their motion to strike the note of issue had merit, no independent medical examination of plaintiffs having yet been performed (see, Ortiz v Arias, 285 AD2d 390). Finally, although defendants evidently waived their right to physical [132]*132examinations of plaintiffs, defendants, in the interests of justice, were properly relieved of such waiver in the absence of any showing that such relief would prejudice plaintiffs (Williams v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 147 AD2d 558, 559; Roberson v Fordham Rent-A-Car Corp., 38 AD2d 535).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered May 30, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants Lillie Blue and Darrell Reaves to vacate a prior order denying their motion to strike the note of issue and directed plaintiffs to submit to physical examinations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in vacating its default order entered solely as a result of defendants’ failure to timely appear for oral argument (see, Vitiello v Mayrich Constr. Corp., 255 AD2d 182). Defendants provided a reasonable excuse for their “default” (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kramer v Edenwald Constr. Co., 261 AD2d 284) and demonstrated that their motion to strike the note of issue had merit, no independent medical examination of plaintiffs having yet been performed (see, Ortiz v Arias, 285 AD2d 390). Finally, although defendants evidently waived their right to physical [132]*132examinations of plaintiffs, defendants, in the interests of justice, were properly relieved of such waiver in the absence of any showing that such relief would prejudice plaintiffs (Williams v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 147 AD2d 558, 559; Roberson v Fordham Rent-A-Car Corp., 38 AD2d 535).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 131, 734 N.Y.S.2d 172, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-v-blue-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack