Hardy v. Schultz

273 A.D.2d 355, 710 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7099

This text of 273 A.D.2d 355 (Hardy v. Schultz) 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
Hardy v. Schultz, 273 A.D.2d 355, 710 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered August 18, 1999, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate his default and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the plaintiff’s default and restoring the action to the calendar (see, Matter of Ping Lee v City of New York, 233 AD2d 510). The plaintiff proffered a sufficient excuse for his unintentional default under the circumstances, and established the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Putney v. Pearlman
203 A.D.2d 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Lee v. City of New York
233 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 355, 710 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-schultz-nyappdiv-2000.