Hildebrandt v. Dictation Disc Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hildebrandt v. Dictation Disc Co.

211 A.D.2d 530, 621 N.Y.S.2d 559

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 530 (Hildebrandt v. Dictation Disc Co.) 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

Hildebrandt v. Dictation Disc Co., 211 A.D.2d 530, 621 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered August 8, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment that was entered against them for failure to [531]*531appear at a court-ordered conference and to answer plaintiffs amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s refusal to vacate defendants’ two-pronged default was a proper exercise of discretion where the excuse offered by defendants’ attorney for not attending the May 23, 1994 compliance conference—that he was unaware of its scheduling in the February 7, 1994 preliminary conference order issued some three weeks before he had been substituted in—was inconsistent with his reason for not answering the amended complaint referred to in the February 7 order—that the February 7 order did not provide for the service of an amended complaint, and, as the IAS Court stated, the amended complaint should not have been ignored "whatever its merits”. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered August 8, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment that was entered against them for failure to [531]*531appear at a court-ordered conference and to answer plaintiffs amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court’s refusal to vacate defendants’ two-pronged default was a proper exercise of discretion where the excuse offered by defendants’ attorney for not attending the May 23, 1994 compliance conference—that he was unaware of its scheduling in the February 7, 1994 preliminary conference order issued some three weeks before he had been substituted in—was inconsistent with his reason for not answering the amended complaint referred to in the February 7 order—that the February 7 order did not provide for the service of an amended complaint, and, as the IAS Court stated, the amended complaint should not have been ignored "whatever its merits”. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 530, 621 N.Y.S.2d 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hildebrandt-v-dictation-disc-co-nyappdiv-1995.