M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. v. Overton & Co. Customs Brokers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. v. Overton & Co. Customs Brokers, Inc.

182 A.D.2d 570

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 570 (M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. v. Overton & Co. Customs Brokers, 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

M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. v. Overton & Co. Customs Brokers, Inc., 182 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered November 13, 1990, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a default, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny the motion on the ground that it is academic, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Upon defendant’s default on a motion to preclude for failure to comply with discovery demands, a conditional order of [571]*571preclusion was granted allowing defendant an additional 45 days to comply with the outstanding demands. Unaware that a conditional order had been granted, defendant moved to vacate its default while simultaneously providing its discovery responses. The IAS court denied the notice to vacate the default, finding an insufficient showing of an excusable default or a meritorious defense.

Whether or not defendant made a showing sufficient to vacate its default, it clearly complied with the prior, conditional order by serving the discovery items with its moving papers thereby rendering academic the whole issue of the default. As there appears to be some confusion on this point, we modify so as to reflect that the discovery had been provided and that no sanction of any kind is warranted. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered November 13, 1990, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a default, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny the motion on the ground that it is academic, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Upon defendant’s default on a motion to preclude for failure to comply with discovery demands, a conditional order of [571]*571preclusion was granted allowing defendant an additional 45 days to comply with the outstanding demands. Unaware that a conditional order had been granted, defendant moved to vacate its default while simultaneously providing its discovery responses. The IAS court denied the notice to vacate the default, finding an insufficient showing of an excusable default or a meritorious defense.

Whether or not defendant made a showing sufficient to vacate its default, it clearly complied with the prior, conditional order by serving the discovery items with its moving papers thereby rendering academic the whole issue of the default. As there appears to be some confusion on this point, we modify so as to reflect that the discovery had been provided and that no sanction of any kind is warranted. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-fabrikant-sons-inc-v-overton-co-customs-brokers-inc-nyappdiv-1992.