Hoskie Co. v. Wu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoskie Co. v. Wu

112 A.D.3d 497, 978 N.Y.S.2d 838

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 497 (Hoskie Co. v. Wu) 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

Hoskie Co. v. Wu, 112 A.D.3d 497, 978 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 10, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, granted defendants’ motion to renew, and, upon renewal, vacated a default judgment previously entered against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ complaint overlapped a prior pending action in which some defendants were involved, and which was being defended actively by an entity that plaintiffs contend is the alter ego of defendants. Thus, a default against defendants should not have been granted by the original motion court here, particularly where the error was compounded by the lack of any party affidavit as to the alter-ego allegations. Accordingly, in light of the strong policy in favor of the resolution of disputes on the merits, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding this to be one of the instances in which the interest of justice was served by the grant of renewal and the vacatur of the default despite defendants’ failure to timely respond to the original motion (see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 376-377 [1st Dept 2001]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered December 10, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, granted defendants’ motion to renew, and, upon renewal, vacated a default judgment previously entered against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ complaint overlapped a prior pending action in which some defendants were involved, and which was being defended actively by an entity that plaintiffs contend is the alter ego of defendants. Thus, a default against defendants should not have been granted by the original motion court here, particularly where the error was compounded by the lack of any party affidavit as to the alter-ego allegations. Accordingly, in light of the strong policy in favor of the resolution of disputes on the merits, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding this to be one of the instances in which the interest of justice was served by the grant of renewal and the vacatur of the default despite defendants’ failure to timely respond to the original motion (see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 376-377 [1st Dept 2001]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 497, 978 N.Y.S.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskie-co-v-wu-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack