Munoz v. Quarex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. Quarex, Inc.

236 A.D.2d 595, 654 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1532

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 595 (Munoz v. Quarex, 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

Munoz v. Quarex, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 595, 654 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 22, 1995, which denied their motion for leave to enter a default judgment and directed the plaintiffs to accept the defendants’ answer served July 24, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon weighing the facts of this case, taking into account the short delay of the defendants in answering the complaint, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the strong policy in favor of resolving actions on their merits, the Supreme Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment and directing them to accept the defendants’ answer served July 24, 1995 (see, Matter of Callahan v City of New York, 75 NY2d 899). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 22, 1995, which denied their motion for leave to enter a default judgment and directed the plaintiffs to accept the defendants’ answer served July 24, 1995.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon weighing the facts of this case, taking into account the short delay of the defendants in answering the complaint, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the strong policy in favor of resolving actions on their merits, the Supreme Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a default judgment and directing them to accept the defendants’ answer served July 24, 1995 (see, Matter of Callahan v City of New York, 75 NY2d 899). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 595, 654 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-quarex-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack