Brady v. Paris Maintenance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brady v. Paris Maintenance Co.

281 A.D.2d 162, 721 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1919

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 162 (Brady v. Paris Maintenance Co.) 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

Brady v. Paris Maintenance Co., 281 A.D.2d 162, 721 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the court’s October 13, 1998 order granting, on default, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint reinstated on the condition that plaintiff provide all the remaining discovery within 45 days of this order.

Although plaintiff failed to explain her long delay in seeking to vacate her default, the substance of the parties’ depositions, along with the contents of the verified complaint, establish that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action. Nor is there any challenge to counsel’s explanation for his default on the dismissal motion. Particularly in recognition of plaintiff’s cooperation with the discovery process in all other respects, and in the absence of any apparent prejudice to defendant, we conclude that plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to proceed with this action, subject to the foregoing condition. Concur—Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about December 7, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the court’s October 13, 1998 order granting, on default, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint reinstated on the condition that plaintiff provide all the remaining discovery within 45 days of this order.

Although plaintiff failed to explain her long delay in seeking to vacate her default, the substance of the parties’ depositions, along with the contents of the verified complaint, establish that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action. Nor is there any challenge to counsel’s explanation for his default on the dismissal motion. Particularly in recognition of plaintiff’s cooperation with the discovery process in all other respects, and in the absence of any apparent prejudice to defendant, we conclude that plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to proceed with this action, subject to the foregoing condition. Concur—Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 162, 721 N.Y.S.2d 512, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-paris-maintenance-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack