GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Druchinina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Druchinina

68 A.D.3d 816, 889 N.Y.2d 477

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 816 (GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Druchinina) 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

GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Druchinina, 68 A.D.3d 816, 889 N.Y.2d 477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the prior order dated November 1, 2007, inter alia, granting that branch of the motion of the defendants Anthony Samuels and Branda Samuels which was to dismiss the [817]*817complaint insofar as asserted against them upon the plaintiffs default in opposing the motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its default (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d 673, 673-674 [2007]; cf. Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671 [2006]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678, 679 [2006]), and had a meritorious claim (see Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v O’Connor, 63 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; Cash v Titan Fin. Servs., Inc., 58 AD3d 785, 788 [2009]; Daniel Perla Assoc., LP v 101 Kent Assoc., Inc., 40 AD3d 677, 678 [2007]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the prior order dated November 1, 2007, inter alia, granting that branch of the motion of the defendants Anthony Samuels and Branda Samuels which was to dismiss the [817]*817complaint insofar as asserted against them upon the plaintiffs default in opposing the motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its default (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d 673, 673-674 [2007]; cf. Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671 [2006]; Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos, 27 AD3d 678, 679 [2006]), and had a meritorious claim (see Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v O’Connor, 63 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; Cash v Titan Fin. Servs., Inc., 58 AD3d 785, 788 [2009]; Daniel Perla Assoc., LP v 101 Kent Assoc., Inc., 40 AD3d 677, 678 [2007]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 816, 889 N.Y.2d 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gmac-mortgage-corp-v-druchinina-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack