Meade v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meade v. Hoffman

27 A.D.2d 541, 276 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2953

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 541 (Meade v. Hoffman) 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

Meade v. Hoffman, 27 A.D.2d 541, 276 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 16, 1966, modified (1) by striking therefrom the provisions restoring Action No. 2 to the Trial Calendar and (2) by substituting therefor a provision adhering to the court’s prior order, dated February 1, 1966, which denied such relief. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements payable to appellant. Respondent’s original motion to open her default and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar was made more than three years after the action had been dismissed, upon the failure of her attorney to appear at successive pretrial conferences, and considerably more than one year after her attorney learned of the dismissal. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of the Special Term’s discretion to grant respondent relief from her default. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 16, 1966, modified (1) by striking therefrom the provisions restoring Action No. 2 to the Trial Calendar and (2) by substituting therefor a provision adhering to the court’s prior order, dated February 1, 1966, which denied such relief. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements payable to appellant. Respondent’s original motion to open her default and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar was made more than three years after the action had been dismissed, upon the failure of her attorney to appear at successive pretrial conferences, and considerably more than one year after her attorney learned of the dismissal. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of the Special Term’s discretion to grant respondent relief from her default. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 541, 276 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meade-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1966.