Batista v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Batista v. Allstate Insurance

289 A.D.2d 519, 735 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 519 (Batista v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Batista v. Allstate Insurance, 289 A.D.2d 519, 735 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which denied its motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer because the defendant demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for its default in answering nor the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Melish v Melish, 267 AD2d 218; Rivera v 999 Realty Mgt., 246 AD2d 637; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382; Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which denied its motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer because the defendant demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse for its default in answering nor the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Melish v Melish, 267 AD2d 218; Rivera v 999 Realty Mgt., 246 AD2d 637; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382; Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 519, 735 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batista-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack