Manne v. Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manne v. Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 6997

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2018

Docket158800/16 7406NA 7406N

StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 6997 (Manne v. Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, 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

Manne v. Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 6997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Manne v Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 06997)

Manne v Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 06997

Decided on October 18, 2018

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 October 18, 2018
Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

158800/16 7406NA 7406N

[*1] Bindu Manne, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Berkowits School of Electrolysis, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Jericho (Gregory A. Goodman of counsel), for appellant.

Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Elmsford (James M. Skelly of counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered October 27, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, and granted defendant's order to show cause to deem its late answer timely filed, nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given that defendant asserted a reasonable excuse for its delay, namely, ongoing settlement negotiations between plaintiff and defendant's insurance carrier, the court exercised its discretion providently in denying the default judgment (see Zwicker v Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2012]). Given the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits, the court properly accepted defendant's answer, deeming it timely filed nunc pro tunc (see Berardo v Guillet, 86 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 18, 2018

CLERK

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

Manne v Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 06997)

Manne v Berkowits Sch. of Electrolysis, Inc.

2018 NY Slip Op 06997

Decided on October 18, 2018

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 October 18, 2018
Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

158800/16 7406NA 7406N

[*1] Bindu Manne, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Berkowits School of Electrolysis, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Jericho (Gregory A. Goodman of counsel), for appellant.

Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Elmsford (James M. Skelly of counsel), for respondent.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered October 27, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, and granted defendant's order to show cause to deem its late answer timely filed, nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given that defendant asserted a reasonable excuse for its delay, namely, ongoing settlement negotiations between plaintiff and defendant's insurance carrier, the court exercised its discretion providently in denying the default judgment (see Zwicker v Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2012]). Given the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits, the court properly accepted defendant's answer, deeming it timely filed nunc pro tunc (see Berardo v Guillet, 86 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2011]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 18, 2018

CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2018 NY Slip Op 6997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manne-v-berkowits-sch-of-electrolysis-inc-nyappdiv-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack