Keenan v. Maccariello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keenan v. Maccariello

254 A.D.2d 462, 679 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11266

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 462 (Keenan v. Maccariello) 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

Keenan v. Maccariello, 254 A.D.2d 462, 679 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and defamation, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered September 23, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in vacating the judgment entered upon the defendant’s default in interposing an answer to the complaint. The defendant proffered a sufficient excuse for his unintentional default under the circumstances presented, and established the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Kennedy v Cassmon Realty Co., 139 AD2d 629; Stolpiec v Wiener, 100 AD2d 931). Any prejudice suffered by the plaintiffs was self-created and was not attributable to the defendant’s default. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, 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 assault and defamation, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered September 23, 1997, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in vacating the judgment entered upon the defendant’s default in interposing an answer to the complaint. The defendant proffered a sufficient excuse for his unintentional default under the circumstances presented, and established the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Kennedy v Cassmon Realty Co., 139 AD2d 629; Stolpiec v Wiener, 100 AD2d 931). Any prejudice suffered by the plaintiffs was self-created and was not attributable to the defendant’s default. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 462, 679 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-v-maccariello-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack