Finkelstein v. East 65th Street Laundromat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkelstein v. East 65th Street Laundromat

215 A.D.2d 178, 626 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4963

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 1995·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 8, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The settlement negotiations between plaintiff and defendant landowner’s insurer constitutes a reasonable excuse for defendant’s delay in answering, and defendant’s alleged lack of notice of any defect on the exterior stairway and assertion that it was the tenant’s responsibility to repair the stairway constitute a meritorious defense. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 8, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The settlement negotiations between plaintiff and defendant landowner’s insurer constitutes a reasonable excuse for defendant’s delay in answering, and defendant’s alleged lack of notice of any defect on the exterior stairway and assertion that it was the tenant’s responsibility to repair the stairway constitute a meritorious defense. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Finkelstein v. East 65th Street Laundromat, 215 A.D.2d 178, 626 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

215 A.D.2d 178 (Finkelstein v. East 65th Street Laundromat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related