New York Central Mutual Insurance v. Jovine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Central Mutual Insurance v. Jovine

1 A.D.3d 278, 767 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12577

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2003·Published

Opinion

[279] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered April 24, 2003, which, in a proceeding to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, denied additional respondent-appellant insurer’s motion to vacate its default in appearing at a framed issue hearing, with leave to renew upon proper papers, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion is supported by an affirmation of an attorney in the law firm representing appellant, which is made on information and belief and, for an excuse, simply states that appellant’s failure to attend the framed issue hearing was due to “miscalendaring.” The motion court properly rejected this statement as inexplicably made by a person who lacks personal knowledge of the calendaring of the framed issue hearing, and otherwise lacking the detail necessary to show that the failure to calendar the matter accurately was excusable (see Matter of Wynyard v Antique Co., 247 AD2d 265 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[279] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered April 24, 2003, which, in a proceeding to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, denied additional respondent-appellant insurer’s motion to vacate its default in appearing at a framed issue hearing, with leave to renew upon proper papers, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion is supported by an affirmation of an attorney in the law firm representing appellant, which is made on information and belief and, for an excuse, simply states that appellant’s failure to attend the framed issue hearing was due to “miscalendaring.” The motion court properly rejected this statement as inexplicably made by a person who lacks personal knowledge of the calendaring of the framed issue hearing, and otherwise lacking the detail necessary to show that the failure to calendar the matter accurately was excusable (see Matter of Wynyard v Antique Co., 247 AD2d 265 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

New York Central Mutual Insurance v. Jovine, 1 A.D.3d 278, 767 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

1 A.D.3d 278 (New York Central Mutual Insurance v. Jovine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related