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

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 342 (Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 342, 635 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-pulse-combustion-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack