Crystal Run Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Milnor Construction Corp.

301 A.D.2d 491, 752 N.Y.S.2d 894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 491 (Crystal Run Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Milnor Construction 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
Crystal Run Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Milnor Construction Corp., 301 A.D.2d 491, 752 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Milnor Construction Corp., Milton Novie, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), entered October 25, 2001, which, upon their default in appearing at trial, awarded the plaintiff damages in the total sum of $156,526.80, and (2) an order of the same court (Owen, J.), dated January 28, 2002, which, in effect, denied their motion to vacate their default.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon default (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, the motion is granted, and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to vacate their default. The appellants established that excusable law office failure was the cause of the default in appearing at the nonjury trial (see CPLR 2005; Burns v Casale, 276 AD2d 734; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310), and also demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see Incorporated Vil. of Saltaire v Zagata, 280 AD2d 547; Certified Fence Corp. v Felix Indus., 260 AD2d 338; Krohn v Felix Indus., 226 AD2d 506). Under the circumstances of this case, the motion should have been granted. Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Travis v. Mason
17 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Liotti v. Peace
15 A.D.3d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Dionisiou v. United Painting Contracting, Inc.
13 A.D.3d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ray Realty Fulton, Inc. v. Lee
7 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 A.D.2d 491, 752 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-run-sand-gravel-inc-v-milnor-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2003.