New York Life Insurance v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Life Insurance v. Washington

198 A.D.2d 128, 604 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10803

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 128 (New York Life Insurance v. Washington) 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

New York Life Insurance v. Washington, 198 A.D.2d 128, 604 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 9, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against her, is unanimously reversed, without costs or disbursements, on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, unless defendant pays to plaintiff personally the sum of $1000, in which case, the said order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the default judgment and finding that defendant furnished a [129]*129reasonable excuse for her default and demonstrated a meritorious defense. However, under the circumstances herein, we find that such vacatur should have been conditioned on the payment of $1000 to the plaintiff by the defendant personally. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 9, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against her, is unanimously reversed, without costs or disbursements, on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, unless defendant pays to plaintiff personally the sum of $1000, in which case, the said order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the default judgment and finding that defendant furnished a [129]*129reasonable excuse for her default and demonstrated a meritorious defense. However, under the circumstances herein, we find that such vacatur should have been conditioned on the payment of $1000 to the plaintiff by the defendant personally. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 128, 604 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-life-insurance-v-washington-nyappdiv-1993.