Garifo-Morelli v. Rothstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garifo-Morelli v. Rothstein

108 A.D.2d 897, 485 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43229

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 897 (Garifo-Morelli v. Rothstein) 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

Garifo-Morelli v. Rothstein, 108 A.D.2d 897, 485 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 19, 1983, which granted defendant Smithtown Toyota Corp.’s motion to vacate its default in timely answering the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in Special Term’s vacating of defendant Smithtown Toyota Corp.’s default based on its service of the answer eight days beyond the date stated in the single stipulation extending the time to answer. We particularly note that the default occurred less than two months after the accident (see, CPLR 2004). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 19, 1983, which granted defendant Smithtown Toyota Corp.’s motion to vacate its default in timely answering the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in Special Term’s vacating of defendant Smithtown Toyota Corp.’s default based on its service of the answer eight days beyond the date stated in the single stipulation extending the time to answer. We particularly note that the default occurred less than two months after the accident (see, CPLR 2004). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 897, 485 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garifo-morelli-v-rothstein-nyappdiv-1985.