Jones v. Marley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Marley

167 A.D.2d 640, 563 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 640 (Jones v. Marley) 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

Jones v. Marley, 167 A.D.2d 640, 563 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered October 6, 1989 in Schenectady County, which granted defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them.

Defendants satisfied the necessary requirements to justify the vacatur of the default judgment entered against them. The failure to serve a timely answer was not willful and the excuse given, that defendants’ insurance company misplaced the file, was reasonable (see, Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 AD2d 165). Defendants also offered evidence in support of their claim of a meritorious defense. Given that the law favors the resolution of cases on their merits, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the vacatur motion (see, Tiger v Town of Bolton, 150 AD2d 889).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered October 6, 1989 in Schenectady County, which granted defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them.

Defendants satisfied the necessary requirements to justify the vacatur of the default judgment entered against them. The failure to serve a timely answer was not willful and the excuse given, that defendants’ insurance company misplaced the file, was reasonable (see, Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 AD2d 165). Defendants also offered evidence in support of their claim of a meritorious defense. Given that the law favors the resolution of cases on their merits, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the vacatur motion (see, Tiger v Town of Bolton, 150 AD2d 889).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 640, 563 N.Y.S.2d 685, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-marley-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack