Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

67 A.D.3d 499, 887 N.Y.S.2d 845

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 499 (Rodriguez v. Rodriguez) 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

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 67 A.D.3d 499, 887 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered September 19, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew his motion to vacate a default judgment and restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, renewal granted and, upon renewal, the motion to vacate the default granted and the matter remanded for trial.

Defendant’s attorney’s representation that a former employee had been misdirecting or misplacing mail provides a reasonable excuse for his failure to present such evidence of law office failure on defendant’s original motion to vacate the default judgment as well as his failure to appear in court on various dates (see Solowij v Otis El. Co., 260 AD2d 226 [1999]). Defendant’s affidavit shows a meritorious defense. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered September 19, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew his motion to vacate a default judgment and restore the case to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, renewal granted and, upon renewal, the motion to vacate the default granted and the matter remanded for trial.

Defendant’s attorney’s representation that a former employee had been misdirecting or misplacing mail provides a reasonable excuse for his failure to present such evidence of law office failure on defendant’s original motion to vacate the default judgment as well as his failure to appear in court on various dates (see Solowij v Otis El. Co., 260 AD2d 226 [1999]). Defendant’s affidavit shows a meritorious defense. Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 499, 887 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack