Andrews v. Petriga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrews v. Petriga

280 A.D.2d 374, 720 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1576

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 374 (Andrews v. Petriga) 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

Andrews v. Petriga, 280 A.D.2d 374, 720 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered August 28, 2000, which denied defendant DAR Leasing Corp.’s (DAR) motion to vacate a prior order, entered May 10, 2000, granting plaintiffs motion to strike DAR’s answer on default, and to strike plaintiffs note of issue, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of granting the motion to vacate and reinstating the answer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Given our preference for disposition of cases on the merits (see, Santora & McKay v Mazzella, 211 AD2d 460), we find that the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying DAR’s motion to vacate its default where it had demonstrated both a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for its default. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered August 28, 2000, which denied defendant DAR Leasing Corp.’s (DAR) motion to vacate a prior order, entered May 10, 2000, granting plaintiffs motion to strike DAR’s answer on default, and to strike plaintiffs note of issue, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of granting the motion to vacate and reinstating the answer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Given our preference for disposition of cases on the merits (see, Santora & McKay v Mazzella, 211 AD2d 460), we find that the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying DAR’s motion to vacate its default where it had demonstrated both a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for its default. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 374, 720 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-petriga-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack