Better v. Town of Schodack

169 A.D.2d 965, 564 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 965 (Better v. Town of Schodack) 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
Better v. Town of Schodack, 169 A.D.2d 965, 564 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered October 6, 1989 in Rensselaer County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment.

At issue on this appeal is whether Supreme Court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and granted defendant’s motion to compel acceptance of a notice of appearance. Based upon the factors to be considered on a motion for relief pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), we find no abuse of discretion (see, Shure v Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 AD2d 887; Continental Cas. Co. v Cozzalino Constr. Co., 120 AD2d 779). The delay was relatively brief, attributable in part to the refusal by defendant’s insurer to defend and in part to defendant being unaware that no notice of appearance had been filed when it learned of the insurer’s refusal to defend. Plaintiffs clearly were not prejudiced by the brief delay and there is no allegation of willful inaction by defendant. As to the merits, we note that CPLR 3012 (d) does not require an affidavit of merit as a precondition to obtaining relief where, as here, the delay has been of reasonably short duration (see, Continental Cas. Co. v Cozzalino Constr. Co., supra, at 779). In any event, there are affidavits in the record which reveal that at least a part of plaintiffs’ damages may have been caused by another party.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Huckle v. CDH Corp.
30 A.D.3d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Juseinoski v. Board of Education
15 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Humphrey v. WIXT News Ch. 9
12 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Aabel v. Town of Poughkeepsie
301 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District
248 A.D.2d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Busa v. Busa
196 A.D.2d 267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Bardi v. Warren County Sheriff's Department
194 A.D.2d 21 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Poneman v. Van Loan
188 A.D.2d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
American Security Insurance v. Williams
176 A.D.2d 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 A.D.2d 965, 564 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/better-v-town-of-schodack-nyappdiv-1991.