Nevruzoglu v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nevruzoglu v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance

111 A.D.2d 227, 489 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51363

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

DecidedMay 13, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 227 (Nevruzoglu v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Nevruzoglu v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance, 111 A.D.2d 227, 489 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover under a policy of insurance for a burglary loss, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated May 22, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of its complaint and restore the action to the Trial Calendar.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in restoring this case since plaintiff never intended to abandon the action, but rather, delayed due to his belief that further pretrial discovery remained (see, CPLR 3404; Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542). In addition to establishing a reasonable excuse for his delay, plaintiff demonstrated a lack of any significant prejudice to defendant and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, 22 NYCRR 675.5; Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 930). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover under a policy of insurance for a burglary loss, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated May 22, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of its complaint and restore the action to the Trial Calendar.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in restoring this case since plaintiff never intended to abandon the action, but rather, delayed due to his belief that further pretrial discovery remained (see, CPLR 3404; Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542). In addition to establishing a reasonable excuse for his delay, plaintiff demonstrated a lack of any significant prejudice to defendant and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, 22 NYCRR 675.5; Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 930). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 227, 489 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevruzoglu-v-otsego-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack