Baron v. Earl I. Wadhams, Inc.

139 A.D.2d 956
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 8, 1988
DocketAppeal No. 2
StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 956 (Baron v. Earl I. Wadhams, 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
Baron v. Earl I. Wadhams, Inc., 139 A.D.2d 956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order, entered on default and dismissing the action on the ground of law office failure (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 2005). CPLR 2005 permits a court to excuse a default for law office failure; however, there must be a reasonable excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merits (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen &

[957]*957Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695); plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay to demonstrate that her cause of action has merit. (Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Reed, J. — vacate default.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Den-man, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

FID. & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
455 N.E.2d 1259 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.D.2d 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-earl-i-wadhams-inc-nyappdiv-1988.