Mantis v. Gerstenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mantis v. Gerstenfeld

87 A.D.2d 573, 450 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15827

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 573 (Mantis v. Gerstenfeld) 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

Mantis v. Gerstenfeld, 87 A.D.2d 573, 450 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (O’Gorman, J.), entered March 27, 1981, which (1) granted so must of defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment as sought permission to serve and file a late answer and (2) stayed the plaintiff from enforcing the judgment until final determination" of the action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Special Term abused its discretion in excusing defendants’ default in appearing and granting them permission to serve a late answer and counterclaim, since the defendants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their delay (see Fischer v Town of Clarkstown, 86 AD2d 650; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 AD2d 580). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (O’Gorman, J.), entered March 27, 1981, which (1) granted so must of defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment as sought permission to serve and file a late answer and (2) stayed the plaintiff from enforcing the judgment until final determination" of the action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Special Term abused its discretion in excusing defendants’ default in appearing and granting them permission to serve a late answer and counterclaim, since the defendants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their delay (see Fischer v Town of Clarkstown, 86 AD2d 650; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 AD2d 580). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 573, 450 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mantis-v-gerstenfeld-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack