Cilindrello v. Rayabin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cilindrello v. Rayabin

297 A.D.2d 699, 747 N.Y.2d 388, 747 N.Y.S.2d 388, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 699 (Cilindrello v. Rayabin) 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

Cilindrello v. Rayabin, 297 A.D.2d 699, 747 N.Y.2d 388, 747 N.Y.S.2d 388, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default, and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382, 383; cf. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). To justify his delay in answering the complaint, the defendant submitted his attorneys affirmation alleging that the delay was caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier, which is insufficient to establish an excusable default (see Warn v Choi-Lee, 291 AD2d 490; Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without [700]*700merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bishop v Bishop, 295 AD2d 382). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default, and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649, 650; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382, 383; cf. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). To justify his delay in answering the complaint, the defendant submitted his attorneys affirmation alleging that the delay was caused by the defendant’s insurance carrier, which is insufficient to establish an excusable default (see Warn v Choi-Lee, 291 AD2d 490; Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without [700]*700merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bishop v Bishop, 295 AD2d 382). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 699, 747 N.Y.2d 388, 747 N.Y.S.2d 388, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cilindrello-v-rayabin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack