Roe Bros. v. Adam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roe Bros. v. Adam

114 A.D.2d 1024, 495 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54069

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 1024 (Roe Bros. v. Adam) 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

Roe Bros. v. Adam, 114 A.D.2d 1024, 495 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover for goods sold and delivered, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated December 13, 1983, which granted a motion by the defendant’s decedent to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered June 10, 1983, upon his default in appearing.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A court is authorized to vacate a default judgment pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 5015 upon a showing of an excusable default and a meritorious defense. In the case at bar, prior to his death the defendant’s decedent explained that his default was the result of an inadvertent mistake, and he offered evidence in support of his claim that he had a meritorious defense. Accordingly, recognizing the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have granted the motion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Anolick v Travelers Ins. Co., 63 AD2d 665, 666). O’Connor, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover for goods sold and delivered, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated December 13, 1983, which granted a motion by the defendant’s decedent to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered June 10, 1983, upon his default in appearing.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A court is authorized to vacate a default judgment pursuant to the provisions of CPLR 5015 upon a showing of an excusable default and a meritorious defense. In the case at bar, prior to his death the defendant’s decedent explained that his default was the result of an inadvertent mistake, and he offered evidence in support of his claim that he had a meritorious defense. Accordingly, recognizing the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have granted the motion (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Anolick v Travelers Ins. Co., 63 AD2d 665, 666). O’Connor, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 1024, 495 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roe-bros-v-adam-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack