From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marabella v. Timothy Lundy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 12, 1983
60 N.Y.2d 581 (N.Y. 1983)

Opinion

Decided July 12, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOSEPH F. GAGLIARDI, J.

Solomon Abrahams for appellant.

Joseph J. Buderwitz, Jr., for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with cost.

We need not consider the recent amendments to the CPLR allowing the lower courts to exercise discretion "to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure" (CPLR 2005, 3012, subd [d]), for we agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff's papers failed to establish the merit of the cause of action as required by 22 N.Y.CRR 675.5 (b).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Marabella v. Timothy Lundy

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 12, 1983
60 N.Y.2d 581 (N.Y. 1983)
Case details for

Marabella v. Timothy Lundy

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS A. MARABELLA, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY LUNDY et al., Respondents, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 12, 1983

Citations

60 N.Y.2d 581 (N.Y. 1983)
467 N.Y.S.2d 41
454 N.E.2d 122

Citing Cases

Mancheno v. City of New York

The plaintiffs' motion to restore — in effect, a motion to vacate the dismissal and restore — was granted by…

Guzman v. Am. Credit Union

In opposition, defense counsel asserts that "it is fundamental that a motion to restore a case to the trial…