Kolodny v. Kolodny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kolodny v. Kolodny

286 A.D.2d 422, 730 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8085

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 20, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated December 29, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to vacate his default in answering, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter a judgment upon his default, and for an inquest on the financial issues.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering. Given the State’s liberal policy toward preventing defaults in matrimonial actions, the reasonable excuse proffered for the defendant’s delay in answering, the demonstration of a meritorious defense, and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendant should have been granted an extension of time to serve an answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Adams v Adams, 255 AD2d 535; Kremer v Kremer, 150 AD2d 759). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated December 29, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to vacate his default in answering, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter a judgment upon his default, and for an inquest on the financial issues.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering. Given the State’s liberal policy toward preventing defaults in matrimonial actions, the reasonable excuse proffered for the defendant’s delay in answering, the demonstration of a meritorious defense, and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendant should have been granted an extension of time to serve an answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Adams v Adams, 255 AD2d 535; Kremer v Kremer, 150 AD2d 759). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Kolodny v. Kolodny, 286 A.D.2d 422, 730 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

286 A.D.2d 422 (Kolodny v. Kolodny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related