Ellis v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellis v. Jackson

267 A.D.2d 20, 698 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12405

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 20 (Ellis v. Jackson) 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

Ellis v. Jackson, 267 A.D.2d 20, 698 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about December 17, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, vacated defendant’s default and deemed defendant’s answer timely served, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[21]*21Defendant’s delay in answering was brief and defendant’s excuse for the default was reasonable (see, Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 AD2d 165, 166). In addition, defendant’s verified answer, served upon and rejected by plaintiff as untimely, and thereafter submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, sets forth denials and asserts affirmative defenses sufficient to establish the existence of a meritorious defense (see, supra; Elliot v James, 97 AD2d 428, 429). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about December 17, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, vacated defendant’s default and deemed defendant’s answer timely served, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[21]*21Defendant’s delay in answering was brief and defendant’s excuse for the default was reasonable (see, Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 AD2d 165, 166). In addition, defendant’s verified answer, served upon and rejected by plaintiff as untimely, and thereafter submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, sets forth denials and asserts affirmative defenses sufficient to establish the existence of a meritorious defense (see, supra; Elliot v James, 97 AD2d 428, 429). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 20, 698 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack