Foos v. Tripet Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foos v. Tripet Construction Co.

25 A.D.2d 614, 267 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4891

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 614 (Foos v. Tripet Construction Co.) 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

Foos v. Tripet Construction Co., 25 A.D.2d 614, 267 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The opening of defendant’s default in appearing was an improvident exercise of discretion. The summons was served on October 9, 1962 and came into the possession of one Hall, the manager of a claims office of defend[615]*615ant’s insurance carrier. For the next 22 months Hall carried on desultory settlement negotiations with plaintiff’s attorney. In July, 1963, according to Hall’s affidavit, appellant’s counsel requested that the summons be referred to an attorney “to put in an appearance”. This was not done and the matter “remained dormant” for another 10 months. Defendant’s carrier by its gross negligence has forfeited its right to affirmative relief. Its representative not only neglected to turn over the summons to an attorney but with studied indifference ignored the request of plaintiff’s counsel to do so. The position in which the carrier finds itself is of its own making. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term granting defendant’s motion to reopen default.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Yecehio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The opening of defendant’s default in appearing was an improvident exercise of discretion. The summons was served on October 9, 1962 and came into the possession of one Hall, the manager of a claims office of defend[615]*615ant’s insurance carrier. For the next 22 months Hall carried on desultory settlement negotiations with plaintiff’s attorney. In July, 1963, according to Hall’s affidavit, appellant’s counsel requested that the summons be referred to an attorney “to put in an appearance”. This was not done and the matter “remained dormant” for another 10 months. Defendant’s carrier by its gross negligence has forfeited its right to affirmative relief. Its representative not only neglected to turn over the summons to an attorney but with studied indifference ignored the request of plaintiff’s counsel to do so. The position in which the carrier finds itself is of its own making. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term granting defendant’s motion to reopen default.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Yecehio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 614, 267 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foos-v-tripet-construction-co-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack