Casiano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casiano v. City of New York

245 A.D.2d 244, 666 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13408

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 15,1996, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously re[245]*245versed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted on condition that defendants pay $3,000 to plaintiffs attorneys to cover the costs of the motion to vacate.

While defendants’ excuse for their default, i.e., law office failure by reason of understaffing, is not particularly compelling, their submissions upon the within timely motion for vacatur .make it clear that they possess a meritorious defense and that the default was not intentional. Accordingly, we believe that this is not an appropriate case for departure from this State’s strong preference for resolving controversies upon the merits and grant defendants’ motion subject to their satisfaction of the above-noted condition. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, 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 May 15,1996, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate their default, unanimously re[245]*245versed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted on condition that defendants pay $3,000 to plaintiffs attorneys to cover the costs of the motion to vacate.

While defendants’ excuse for their default, i.e., law office failure by reason of understaffing, is not particularly compelling, their submissions upon the within timely motion for vacatur .make it clear that they possess a meritorious defense and that the default was not intentional. Accordingly, we believe that this is not an appropriate case for departure from this State’s strong preference for resolving controversies upon the merits and grant defendants’ motion subject to their satisfaction of the above-noted condition. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Casiano v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 244, 666 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 244 (Casiano v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related