Chung v. 5400 Fieldston Road Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chung v. 5400 Fieldston Road Corp.

201 A.D.2d 290, 608 N.Y.S.2d 831

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 290 (Chung v. 5400 Fieldston Road Corp.) 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

Chung v. 5400 Fieldston Road Corp., 201 A.D.2d 290, 608 N.Y.S.2d 831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 28, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion to vacate the default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action, brought to recover for injuries sustained as a result of an alleged elevator malfunction, the court properly exercised its discretion to vacate plaintiff’s default in view of plaintiff’s demonstration of a meritorious claim, an adequate excuse, namely, the serious illness of plaintiff’s prior counsel and the absence of any prejudice to defendants.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it without merit. Summary judgment was properly denied. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 28, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion to vacate the default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action, brought to recover for injuries sustained as a result of an alleged elevator malfunction, the court properly exercised its discretion to vacate plaintiff’s default in view of plaintiff’s demonstration of a meritorious claim, an adequate excuse, namely, the serious illness of plaintiff’s prior counsel and the absence of any prejudice to defendants.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it without merit. Summary judgment was properly denied. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 290, 608 N.Y.S.2d 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chung-v-5400-fieldston-road-corp-nyappdiv-1994.