Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority

16 A.D.3d 144, 789 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2198

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 144 (Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Acevedo v. New York City Transit Authority, 16 A.D.3d 144, 789 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered September 12, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s failure to timely answer the complaint was adequately explained as attributable to excusable law office failure and resulted in no discernible prejudice to plaintiff (see Leary v Pou Poune, Inc., 273 AD2d 8 [2000]). In view of this, and the showing of a meritorious defense made out by the affidavit of defendant’s motorman, the default was properly vacated. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered September 12, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s failure to timely answer the complaint was adequately explained as attributable to excusable law office failure and resulted in no discernible prejudice to plaintiff (see Leary v Pou Poune, Inc., 273 AD2d 8 [2000]). In view of this, and the showing of a meritorious defense made out by the affidavit of defendant’s motorman, the default was properly vacated. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 144, 789 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack