Bazac v. Odelia Enterprises Corp.

272 A.D.2d 226, 708 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5917
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 23, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 226 (Bazac v. Odelia Enterprises Corp.) 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
Bazac v. Odelia Enterprises Corp., 272 A.D.2d 226, 708 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 13, 1999, which, in an action by building residential tenants against, among others, defendants-appellants commercial tenant and subtenant of the ground floor premises where a fire in the building allegedly started, insofar as appealed from, denied appellants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint as against them as abandoned, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ failure to track the progress of the action against appellants was a law office failure that reasonably accounts for their failure to move for default judgments as against appellants within a year after their respective defaults. Appellants, a commercial tenant and subtenant who were sued along with the building’s corporate owner and three of the latter’s principals, were the only defendants who failed to timely answer in an action that was one of several related actions involving the same fire, many of the same parties, and a motion to consolidate in which appellants actively participated. In these circumstances, the claimed law office failure is excusable, [227]*227particularly where appellants have not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay (CPLR 3215 [c]; 2005). Plaintiffs’ showing of merit is adequate for present purposes. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Bank of India, N.Y. Branch v. Anaya Gems, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 30054(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Sports Legends, Inc. v. Carberry
38 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Sung-Soon Kim v. Chang Hwa Park
292 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 226, 708 N.Y.S.2d 73, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bazac-v-odelia-enterprises-corp-nyappdiv-2000.