Home Insurance v. Meyers Parking System, Inc.

186 A.D.2d 497, 589 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12432
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 497 (Home Insurance v. Meyers Parking System, Inc.) 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
Home Insurance v. Meyers Parking System, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 497, 589 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered August 12, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action seeks to recover for the alleged negligent loss of [498]*498a 1986 Mercedes-Benz and is brought by the subrogee of the owner of the car. Defendant’s first two attempts to notify its insurer of the action allegedly went astray because the summons and complaint, and later a notice of motion, were mailed to its insurer’s former address. After defendant’s insurer received the defendant’s third letter it finally assigned a lawyer to the file, but counsel for plaintiff refused to unconditionally adjourn his motion for a default judgment. The motion was granted after defendant’s counsel was allegedly delayed due to weather related failure of public transportation. The IAS Court later opened the default, upon, inter alia, defendant’s claim that there was an arbitration agreement to which the respective insurance companies were signatories.

We affirm because of the strong public policy favoring dispositions on the merits, the clear absence of prejudice to plaintiff, and the undisputed point that plaintiff and defendant’s insurer are signatories to the Automobile Property Subrogration Arbitration Agreement. In these circumstances, the IAS Court did not abuse its broad discretion under CPLR 5015 (a) (1). Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Related

Kanner v. Westchester Med. Group, P.L.L.C.
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Adbul v. Lopez
111 A.D.3d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 A.D.2d 497, 589 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-insurance-v-meyers-parking-system-inc-nyappdiv-1992.