Hawco v. Rothman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawco v. Rothman

58 A.D.2d 826, 396 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 826 (Hawco v. Rothman) 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

Hawco v. Rothman, 58 A.D.2d 826, 396 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 11, 1976 which (1) denied his motion for an inquest and assessment of damages and (2) granted the defendant’s cross motion for leave to file and serve a late answer. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we find that Special Term’s opening of the defendant-respondent’s default, and its denial of the plaintiff-appellant’s motion for an inquest and assessment of damages, constituted a proper exercise of its discretion; its determination should not be disturbed (see CPLR 2004; Fusco v Malcolm, 50 AD2d 685; Bermudez v City of New York, 22 AD2d 865). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 11, 1976 which (1) denied his motion for an inquest and assessment of damages and (2) granted the defendant’s cross motion for leave to file and serve a late answer. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we find that Special Term’s opening of the defendant-respondent’s default, and its denial of the plaintiff-appellant’s motion for an inquest and assessment of damages, constituted a proper exercise of its discretion; its determination should not be disturbed (see CPLR 2004; Fusco v Malcolm, 50 AD2d 685; Bermudez v City of New York, 22 AD2d 865). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 826, 396 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawco-v-rothman-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack