A. G. Service Co. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

64 A.D.2d 880, 407 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 7, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 880 (A. G. Service Co. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.) 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
A. G. Service Co. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 64 A.D.2d 880, 407 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

—In an action for work, labor, services and materials, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 20, 1977, which denied its motion to (1) vacate the default judgment entered against it and (2) permit service of a formal answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, upon condition that defendant (as consented to by its counsel in open court) file and serve an undertaking for the full amount of the judgment, with a corporate surety, as security for any recovery which may be had by plaintiff in this action; in the event the condition is not complied with, then order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to serve and file the undertaking and a copy of the answer as annexed to the moving papers, is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The facts herein indicate an excusable default (see Brae Constr. Corp. v Di-Com Corp., 51 AD2d 740). The record suggests at least "an arguable defense * * * that ought to be tested on the merits” (see Becker v Belñ, 26 AD2d 818, 819). While a bond or undertaking is not normally required to reopen an unintentional default (Pacific Northern Fence Corp. v Allied Fabricators, 19 AD2d 541), the possibility of corporate dissolution here renders such condition appropriate particularly upon the consent of defense counsel. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Liberty Taxi Management, Inc. v. Gincherman
32 A.D.3d 276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ferraro v. Balice Fashions, Inc.
173 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Big Apple Industrial Buildings, Inc. v. George A. Fuller Co.
161 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Advance Footwear Co. v. Air Jamaica Ltd.
98 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Montrose Concrete Products Corp. v. Silverite Constructon Co.
68 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.D.2d 880, 407 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-g-service-co-v-interboro-contractors-inc-nyappdiv-1978.