Forestire v. Little

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forestire v. Little

293 A.D.2d 710, 741 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119

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

DecidedApril 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 710 (Forestire v. Little) 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

Forestire v. Little, 293 A.D.2d 710, 741 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Carmine’s Bakery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 1, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against it upon its default in appearing, and denied its cross motion to vacate its default and compel the plaintiffs to accept its late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the appellant’s default, and denying the appellant’s cross motion to compel them to accept its late answer, given its failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default in answering (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382; Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508; Peters v Pickard, 143 AD2d 81). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Carmine’s Bakery, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 1, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against it upon its default in appearing, and denied its cross motion to vacate its default and compel the plaintiffs to accept its late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the appellant’s default, and denying the appellant’s cross motion to compel them to accept its late answer, given its failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default in answering (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382; Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508; Peters v Pickard, 143 AD2d 81). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 710, 741 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forestire-v-little-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack