Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated July 21, 1998, is reinstated.
On a prior appeal, we found that the Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order dated July 21, 1998, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, as their expert's affirmation did not constitute competent evidence (see, Palo v Latt,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.