Leitner & Getz LLP v. Cox

2019 NY Slip Op 2282
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 2019
Docket8795N 156978/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 2282 (Leitner & Getz LLP v. Cox) 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
Leitner & Getz LLP v. Cox, 2019 NY Slip Op 2282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Leitner & Getz LLP v Cox (2019 NY Slip Op 02282)
Leitner & Getz LLP v Cox
2019 NY Slip Op 02282
Decided on March 26, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 26, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.

8795N 156978/17

[*1] Leitner & Getz LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Elise Cox, Defendant-Respondent.


Leitner & Getz LLP, New York (Gregory J. Getz of counsel), for appellant.

Elise Cox, respondent pro se.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Benjamin Cohen, J.), entered May 11, 2018, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to collect attorneys' fees, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendant's motion to vacate where defendant's evidence established that she had grounds to believe her time to answer had been extended. In any event, defendant's delay in answering was minimal considering her change of attorneys at the time plaintiff filed this action, and her need to find counsel amenable to representing her in this fee dispute.

As to the merits of her defense, defendant sufficiently specified grounds challenging certain of the fees billed, and plaintiff's answering papers failed to adequately refute defendant's identified fee complaints. Thus, on this record, defendant met her burden of showing a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense to the action justifying vacatur of the default judgment against her (see generally CPLR 5015[a]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 [1986]; Goldman v Cotter, 10 AD3d 289 [1st Dept 2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 26, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.
492 N.E.2d 116 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Goldman v. Cotter
10 A.D.3d 289 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 2282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leitner-getz-llp-v-cox-nyappdiv-2019.