Capitol Building Corp. v. Petsco & Son

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capitol Building Corp. v. Petsco & Son

273 A.D.2d 336, 711 N.Y.S.2d 731, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103

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

DecidedJune 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 336 (Capitol Building Corp. v. Petsco & Son) 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

Capitol Building Corp. v. Petsco & Son, 273 A.D.2d 336, 711 N.Y.S.2d 731, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated November 8, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint against the defendant Amwest Surety Insurance Company, and, in effect, granted the defendants’ cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated June 16, 1999, entered against the defendant Petsco & Son, a/k/a Prospect Street Construction Corp., d/b/a Petsco & Son, and directed that defendant to serve and file a verified answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default in answering, a defendant must show a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382). The defendant Petsco & Son, a/k/a Prospect Street Construction Corp., d/b/a Petsco & Son, sufficiently established these elements to justify vacating the judgment dated June 16, 1999. In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that defendant an extension of time to answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Furthermore, there are questions of fact which preclude summary judgment against the defendant Amwest Surety Insurance Company.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated November 8, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint against the defendant Amwest Surety Insurance Company, and, in effect, granted the defendants’ cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated June 16, 1999, entered against the defendant Petsco & Son, a/k/a Prospect Street Construction Corp., d/b/a Petsco & Son, and directed that defendant to serve and file a verified answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default in answering, a defendant must show a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382). The defendant Petsco & Son, a/k/a Prospect Street Construction Corp., d/b/a Petsco & Son, sufficiently established these elements to justify vacating the judgment dated June 16, 1999. In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that defendant an extension of time to answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Furthermore, there are questions of fact which preclude summary judgment against the defendant Amwest Surety Insurance Company.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 336, 711 N.Y.S.2d 731, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capitol-building-corp-v-petsco-son-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack