Miller v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Cooper

37 A.D.2d 849, 326 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3327

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 849 (Miller v. Cooper) 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

Miller v. Cooper, 37 A.D.2d 849, 326 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 24, 1971, as denied the following portions of her motion: (1) to set aside plaintiff's notice of application for a default judgment and an assessment of damages and (2) to open defendant’s default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve an answer to the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff, and said portions of defendant’s motion granted. Defendant’s time to serve an answer to the complaint is extended until 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry thereof. The record shows that defendant’s default in pleading was not willful and that plaintiff has a questionable ease on the merits. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny defendant the relief here in question (Schwan v. B. MCK Contr., 35 A D 2d 962; Carrano v. City of New York, 34 A D 2d 980). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal and property injuries, defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated May 24, 1971, as denied the following portions of her motion: (1) to set aside plaintiff's notice of application for a default judgment and an assessment of damages and (2) to open defendant’s default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve an answer to the complaint. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff, and said portions of defendant’s motion granted. Defendant’s time to serve an answer to the complaint is extended until 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry thereof. The record shows that defendant’s default in pleading was not willful and that plaintiff has a questionable ease on the merits. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny defendant the relief here in question (Schwan v. B. MCK Contr., 35 A D 2d 962; Carrano v. City of New York, 34 A D 2d 980). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 849, 326 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-cooper-nyappdiv-1971.