From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Brickhouse

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jun 8, 1998
251 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion


251 A.D.2d 397 675 N.Y.S.2d 542 Jesse SCOTT, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Geneva BRICKHOUSE, et al., Defendants, Earl Holder, Appellant. 1998-05829 Supreme Court of New York, Second Department June 8, 1998.

Carlucci & Associates, New York, N.Y. (E. Richard Vieira of counsel), for appellant.

Michael S. Felman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Marshall D. Sweetbaum of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Earl Holder appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to renew their prior motion to vacate the automatic dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404, and, upon renewal, granted the motion and conditionally restored this matter to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting renewal. The plaintiffs offered an affidavit of merit and an acceptable excuse for failing to previously submit proof of certain facts. Additionally, the equities of this matter, as well as the interests of justice, were properly served by permitting renewal (see, Petito v. Verrazano Contracting Co., --- A.D.2d ----, 666 N.Y.S.2d 962; Karlin v. Bridges, 172 A.D.2d 644, 568 N.Y.S.2d 444).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., PIZZUTO, JOY and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scott v. Brickhouse

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jun 8, 1998
251 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Scott v. Brickhouse

Case Details

Full title:Scott v. Brickhouse

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

Date published: Jun 8, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

Leary v. Bendow

Both parties concede the motion was accidentally submitted to the court in contravention of the stipulation.…