Rainbow Food Corp. v. Tasty Donut Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rainbow Food Corp. v. Tasty Donut Inc.

119 A.D.2d 648, 500 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55573

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

DecidedApril 14, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 648 (Rainbow Food Corp. v. Tasty Donut 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

Rainbow Food Corp. v. Tasty Donut Inc., 119 A.D.2d 648, 500 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for rescission of a contract and to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which, inter alia, granted a motion by the defendant Tasty Donut Inc. to vacate its default in answering.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term’s findings that the papers before it established that the corporate defendant possesses both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to this action. Accordingly, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to vacate its default. We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for rescission of a contract and to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated December 18, 1984, which, inter alia, granted a motion by the defendant Tasty Donut Inc. to vacate its default in answering.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term’s findings that the papers before it established that the corporate defendant possesses both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to this action. Accordingly, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to vacate its default. We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 648, 500 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbow-food-corp-v-tasty-donut-inc-nyappdiv-1986.