Foglia v. Fashion Floors Inc.

79 A.D.2d 598, 433 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 598 (Foglia v. Fashion Floors 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
Foglia v. Fashion Floors Inc., 79 A.D.2d 598, 433 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of warranty, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 25, 1980, which denied its motion to vacate a default in answering and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to have the matter calendared for an inquest. Order reversed, withoqt costs or disbursements, motion granted and cross motion denied, on the conditions that defendant serve its answer and pay $250 to the plaintiffs within 10 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of .entry thereof; in the event such conditions are not complied with, then order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances of the instant case, wherein the default in answering resulted from an apparent mix-up in the offices of the corporate defendant which resulted in the untimely forwarding of the summons and complaint to defendant’s attorney, it not only appears that the default was inadvertent and did not result from any intention on the part of defendant to abandon its defense of the action, but that (1) defendant moved promptly (within 19 days) to vacate its default, and (2) a meritorious defense, raising bona fide issues of fact, can be pleaded. On this state of the record, Special Term’s denial of the defendant’s motion constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (see Anolick v Travelers Ins. Co., 63 AD2d 665; see, also, A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 78 AD2d 689; Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25, 32-33). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sound Shore Medical Center v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
31 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Rodriguez v. L&S Sons, Inc.
295 A.D.2d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Veith Enterprises, Inc. v. Electrical Development & Construction, Inc.
292 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
McCarthy v. Chef Italia, Inc.
105 A.D.2d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.2d 598, 433 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foglia-v-fashion-floors-inc-nyappdiv-1980.