Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.

222 A.D.2d 342, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13299

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered March 21, 1995, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion to vacate its default in appearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant offered a reasonable excuse for its default, namely, that its insurer failed to answer the complaint because of an erroneous belief that it did not insure defendant and that due to a change of address of which its agent for service of process was unaware, it never received notice of either the original motion seeking a default judgment or the order granting the default with notice of entry (cf, Cipriano v Hank, 197 AD2d 295, 296-297). With respect to the merits, defendant raised compelling issues involving apportionment of liability and plaintiff’s own negligence. Plaintiffs make no showing of prejudice as a result of the delay. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered March 21, 1995, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion to vacate its default in appearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant offered a reasonable excuse for its default, namely, that its insurer failed to answer the complaint because of an erroneous belief that it did not insure defendant and that due to a change of address of which its agent for service of process was unaware, it never received notice of either the original motion seeking a default judgment or the order granting the default with notice of entry (cf, Cipriano v Hank, 197 AD2d 295, 296-297). With respect to the merits, defendant raised compelling issues involving apportionment of liability and plaintiff’s own negligence. Plaintiffs make no showing of prejudice as a result of the delay. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc., 222 A.D.2d 342, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

222 A.D.2d 342 (Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related