Finnegan v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finnegan v. Murphy

66 A.D.3d 957, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 2009·Published

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

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.

Finnegan v. Murphy, 66 A.D.3d 957, 886 N.Y.S.2d 826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

66 A.D.3d 957 (Finnegan v. Murphy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related