The motion is supported by an affirmation of an attorney in the law firm representing appellant, which is made on information and belief and, for an excuse, simply states that appellant’s failure to attend the framed issue hearing was due to “miscalendaring.” The motion court properly rejected this statement as inexplicably made by a person who lacks personal knowledge of the calendaring of the framed issue hearing, and otherwise lacking the detail necessary to show that the failure to calendar the matter accurately was excusable (see Matter of Wynyard v Antique Co., 247 AD2d 265 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
New York Central Mutual Insurance v. Jovine
1 A.D.3d 278
N.Y. App. Div.2003Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.
