Haviaris v. 25 Broadway Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haviaris v. 25 Broadway Corp.

93 A.D.2d 789, 461 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636

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

DecidedApril 28, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 789 (Haviaris v. 25 Broadway Corp.) 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

Haviaris v. 25 Broadway Corp., 93 A.D.2d 789, 461 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order entered October 21, 1982 in Supreme Court, New York County (Scott, J.), denying third-party defendant Cushfield Maintenance Corp.’s motion to renew, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the motion is granted, and upon renewal the motion to, in effect, set aside a default entered March 9,1982 is granted, without costs. The delay here in serving the third-party notice of appearance and answer is not of the type which we can conclude constitutes “law office failure.” (See, e.g., Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 56 NY2d 900.) Rather, we find it to be the product of good-faith efforts between the parties to resolve a dispute over a clause in an insurance policy, one interpretation of which would have obviated the need for the third-party action. Indeed, the record shows that appellant obtained, perforce of these negotiations, several extensions of time in which to answer. Obviously, then, this was not a “neglected” action which was overburdening to [790]*790the court system (Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25, 27), nor was respondent at all prejudiced. Accordingly, we vacate the default so that the issues can be determined on their merits. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

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

— Order entered October 21, 1982 in Supreme Court, New York County (Scott, J.), denying third-party defendant Cushfield Maintenance Corp.’s motion to renew, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the motion is granted, and upon renewal the motion to, in effect, set aside a default entered March 9,1982 is granted, without costs. The delay here in serving the third-party notice of appearance and answer is not of the type which we can conclude constitutes “law office failure.” (See, e.g., Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 56 NY2d 900.) Rather, we find it to be the product of good-faith efforts between the parties to resolve a dispute over a clause in an insurance policy, one interpretation of which would have obviated the need for the third-party action. Indeed, the record shows that appellant obtained, perforce of these negotiations, several extensions of time in which to answer. Obviously, then, this was not a “neglected” action which was overburdening to [790]*790the court system (Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25, 27), nor was respondent at all prejudiced. Accordingly, we vacate the default so that the issues can be determined on their merits. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 789, 461 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haviaris-v-25-broadway-corp-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack