Gonzalez v. Schiechel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Schiechel

112 A.D.2d 1026, 492 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52234

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

DecidedAugust 19, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 1026 (Gonzalez v. Schiechel) 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

Gonzalez v. Schiechel, 112 A.D.2d 1026, 492 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated October 31, 1984, which granted defendant’s motion, inter alia, to be relieved of his default in appearing and answering, and denied her cross motion for an award of costs.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term that defendant set forth a meritorious defense in his moving papers and that under the circumstances herein presented the failure of defendant’s insurer to transmit the summons and complaint to its legal [1027]*1027department, which resulted in the default, was properly excused by Special Term in the exercise of its discretion (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]). Gibbons, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated October 31, 1984, which granted defendant’s motion, inter alia, to be relieved of his default in appearing and answering, and denied her cross motion for an award of costs.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term that defendant set forth a meritorious defense in his moving papers and that under the circumstances herein presented the failure of defendant’s insurer to transmit the summons and complaint to its legal [1027]*1027department, which resulted in the default, was properly excused by Special Term in the exercise of its discretion (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]). Gibbons, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 1026, 492 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-schiechel-nyappdiv-1985.