Finnegan v. Murphy
This text of 66 A.D.3d 957 (Finnegan v. Murphy) 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.
Opinion
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the respondents’ motion to vacate their default in answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer, as the defendants demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for their default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832 [2009]; Jaskiel v Tsatskis, 57 AD3d 619 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Dollar Rent A Car, 25 AD3d 534 [2006]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Rivera, J.E, Miller, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 A.D.3d 957, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnegan-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2009.