Lynn & Cahill, LLP v. Witkin
101 A.D.3d 515, 954 N.Y.2d 879
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 2012·Published
Opinion
In response to plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to file an answer (see e.g. Toure v Harrison, 6 AD3d 270, 271 [1st Dept 2004]). Rather, the record suggests that defendant’s inaction constituted a tactical decision on the part of herself and counsel. Nor did defendant demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action.
We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lynn & Cahill, LLP v. Witkin, 101 A.D.3d 515, 954 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
101 A.D.3d 515 (Lynn & Cahill, LLP v. Witkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Toure v. Harrison
6 A.D.3d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)