Lesser v. Ambulette Ass'n of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lesser v. Ambulette Ass'n of New York, Inc.

88 A.D.2d 945, 451 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17305

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

DecidedJune 14, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 945 (Lesser v. Ambulette Ass'n of New York, Inc.) 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

Lesser v. Ambulette Ass'n of New York, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 945, 451 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover fees for legal services, the plaintiff law firm appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Couurt, Nassau County (Niehoff, J.), dated May 14, 1981, as conditioned the granting of its motion for a default judgment against defendant Star Transportation, Inc., upon the failure of said defendant to pay plaintiff $100 costs and to serve its answer within a specified time. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the conditions are deleted and the motion is granted unconditionally. The matter is remitted to Special Term for an inquest to assess damages. Respondent had previously applied for and was granted relief from its default in answering. However, it failed to comply with the prior order of Special Term permitting it to serve a late answer. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, respondent neither demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay nor provided an affidavit of merits (cf. Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 AD2d 580, app dsmd 51 NY2d 769). The excuse proffered for the delay amounted to “law office failure”, and as such, was insufficient as a matter of law (see Barasch v Micucci, supra, p 599; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, supra). Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Boyers, 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 fees for legal services, the plaintiff law firm appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Couurt, Nassau County (Niehoff, J.), dated May 14, 1981, as conditioned the granting of its motion for a default judgment against defendant Star Transportation, Inc., upon the failure of said defendant to pay plaintiff $100 costs and to serve its answer within a specified time. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the conditions are deleted and the motion is granted unconditionally. The matter is remitted to Special Term for an inquest to assess damages. Respondent had previously applied for and was granted relief from its default in answering. However, it failed to comply with the prior order of Special Term permitting it to serve a late answer. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, respondent neither demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay nor provided an affidavit of merits (cf. Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 AD2d 580, app dsmd 51 NY2d 769). The excuse proffered for the delay amounted to “law office failure”, and as such, was insufficient as a matter of law (see Barasch v Micucci, supra, p 599; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, supra). Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 945, 451 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesser-v-ambulette-assn-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack