Midnight Ears, Inc. v. Clear-Vu Packaging, Inc.

81 A.D.2d 907, 439 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 26, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 907 (Midnight Ears, Inc. v. Clear-Vu Packaging, 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
Midnight Ears, Inc. v. Clear-Vu Packaging, Inc., 81 A.D.2d 907, 439 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for loss of bailed property, defendant Clear-Vu Packaging, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 12, 1980, as, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination denying said defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment. Order modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by adding thereto, after the provision adhering to the original determination, the following: “except that the default judgment is opened to the extent of directing a reassessment of damages.” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The judgment shall remain on record in the interim. In our view, the record offers no basis for reopening of the entire default and vacatur of the judgment. The fact that appellant’s insurance carriers engaged in a quarrel among themselves and disputed their obligation to defend provides no excuse to the appellant for delaying 11 months after the time to answer had expired before moving to vacate the default. Indeed, the appellant seems to have defaulted as well in a subsequent New Jersey action to enforce the New York judgment. Nevertheless, the vast discrepancy between plaintiff’s original claim for stock loss and the amount of loss adjudged at the inquest on the basis of rather scanty evidence warrants the opening of the default judgment to the extent of directing a new inquest at which appellant may defend on the issue of damages (see Monette v Bonsall, 29 AD2d 839). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Warren v. Allstate Insurance
300 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Neuman v. Greenblatt
260 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Cruz v. First Call Ambulette Service Corp.
243 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Brosnan v. Behette
186 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Klishwick v. Popovicki
186 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Interboro Management Co. v. State Division of Human Rights
139 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Eveready Insurance v. Devissiere
134 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Cervino v. Konsker
91 A.D.2d 249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 A.D.2d 907, 439 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midnight-ears-inc-v-clear-vu-packaging-inc-nyappdiv-1981.