Darrell v. Yurchuk

174 A.D.2d 557, 572 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 557 (Darrell v. Yurchuk) 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
Darrell v. Yurchuk, 174 A.D.2d 557, 572 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Marianne Yurchuk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered December 20, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate his default in complying with a prior conditional order of preclusion and granted him leave to serve a late bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"Public policy favors a determination on the merits * * * and the sound discretion of Special Term is to be given some latitude in determining what is an excusable default” (Krystofic v Rapisardi, 112 AD2d 196, 197; see also, Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 77-78). While it is true that the delay in serving a bill of particulars was lengthy (approximately two years), under the particular circumstances of this case it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to relieve the plaintiff of his default (see, Davis v Sapa, 107 AD2d 1005; Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., 46 AD2d 806). The plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Juers v Barry, 114 AD2d 1009; Davis v Sapa, supra), and the verified bill of particulars indicated the merits of the action (see, Wilenski v Auricchio Monuments, 102 AD2d 824). Moreover, we note from the record herein that the appellant was not prejudiced by the delay and that there is no indication that the plaintiff ever intended to abandon the action (see, Wilenski v Auricchio Monuments, supra; Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., supra).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Alphonso
2018 NY Slip Op 5454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Bansi v. Flushing Hospital Medical Center
15 Misc. 3d 215 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Scarlett v. McCarthy
2 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Coloccia v. Coloccia
222 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Kaufman v. Board of Education of the City School District
210 A.D.2d 226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
ASC Management Corp. v. Utica Mutual Insurance
203 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Sabatello v. Frescatore
200 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Zapell v. Mecca
190 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Fal-Mart Fashions, Inc. v. K.F.C. National Management Co.
184 A.D.2d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Richardson v. Martorano
184 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Cherry v. New York City Housing Authority
183 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D.2d 557, 572 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrell-v-yurchuk-nyappdiv-1991.