Eisenberg v. Gerald R Michaels, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisenberg v. Gerald R Michaels, Inc.

58 A.D.2d 641

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

DecidedJune 20, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 641 (Eisenberg v. Gerald R Michaels, Inc.) 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

Eisenberg v. Gerald R Michaels, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to compel the determination of adverse claims to certain real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated June 8, 1976, which, inter alia; (1) granted defendant Santinelli’s motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint; and (2) recalled a prior order of the same court, dated April 1, 1976. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Respondent’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Respondent neglected to answer the complaint because he believed, due to the specific allegations contained therein, that he was not really involved in the suit. Considering the totality of the circumstances, as contained in the record, and in the interest of justice, Special Term’s vacatur of his default was a proper exercise of discretion. Respondent’s default cannot be termed willful, intentional or deliberate. Additionally, respondent has presented an adequate affidavit of merit. In keeping with the strong public policy, this matter should be disposed of on the merits (see Colgar Enterprises v Di Giaimo, 41 AD2d 654). Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to compel the determination of adverse claims to certain real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated June 8, 1976, which, inter alia; (1) granted defendant Santinelli’s motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint; and (2) recalled a prior order of the same court, dated April 1, 1976. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Respondent’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Respondent neglected to answer the complaint because he believed, due to the specific allegations contained therein, that he was not really involved in the suit. Considering the totality of the circumstances, as contained in the record, and in the interest of justice, Special Term’s vacatur of his default was a proper exercise of discretion. Respondent’s default cannot be termed willful, intentional or deliberate. Additionally, respondent has presented an adequate affidavit of merit. In keeping with the strong public policy, this matter should be disposed of on the merits (see Colgar Enterprises v Di Giaimo, 41 AD2d 654). Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenberg-v-gerald-r-michaels-inc-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack