Franklin v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin v. Williams

2 A.D.3d 400, 767 N.Y.S.2d 863

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 400 (Franklin v. Williams) 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

Franklin v. Williams, 2 A.D.3d 400, 767 N.Y.S.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 30, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well established that a party seeking to vacate a default in answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708 [2001]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382 [1996]). The only excuse offered for failure to serve a timely [401]*401answer was delay caused by the defendants’ insurance carrier. This was insufficient (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, supra; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 30, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well established that a party seeking to vacate a default in answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, 286 AD2d 708 [2001]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382 [1996]). The only excuse offered for failure to serve a timely [401]*401answer was delay caused by the defendants’ insurance carrier. This was insufficient (see Hazen v Bottiglieri, supra; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 400, 767 N.Y.S.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-williams-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack