Citiwide Masonry Associates, Ltd. v. Summit Renovation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citiwide Masonry Associates, Ltd. v. Summit Renovation Corp.

11 A.D.3d 501, 782 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 501 (Citiwide Masonry Associates, Ltd. v. Summit Renovation 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

Citiwide Masonry Associates, Ltd. v. Summit Renovation Corp., 11 A.D.3d 501, 782 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages based on breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [502]*502Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated September 17, 2003, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 12, 1997, entered upon its default in timely responding to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion to vacate the judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a new determination of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment since the defendant established both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense for its default (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, S. Miller, Cozier and Fisher, 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 based on breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [502]*502Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated September 17, 2003, which denied its motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 12, 1997, entered upon its default in timely responding to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion to vacate the judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a new determination of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment since the defendant established both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense for its default (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, S. Miller, Cozier and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 501, 782 N.Y.S.2d 915, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citiwide-masonry-associates-ltd-v-summit-renovation-corp-nyappdiv-2004.