Rosa v. 42 Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosa v. 42 Holding Corp.

254 A.D.2d 213, 679 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11358

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 213 (Rosa v. 42 Holding Corp.) 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

Rosa v. 42 Holding Corp., 254 A.D.2d 213, 679 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered April 9, 1997, which, upon granting defendant’s motion to renew its prior motion to vacate its default in appearance, granted the motion and vacated a default judgment entered against it on April 26, 1996, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant’s appeal from the judgment, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 26, 1996, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The six-month delay in defendant’s appearance did not prej[214]*214udice plaintiff so as to preclude vacatur of a default caused by defendant’s insurer’s failure to interpose an answer while also failing to disclaim coverage (see, Price v Polisner, 172 AD2d 422; see also, Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242). Meritorious defenses are raised. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered April 9, 1997, which, upon granting defendant’s motion to renew its prior motion to vacate its default in appearance, granted the motion and vacated a default judgment entered against it on April 26, 1996, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant’s appeal from the judgment, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 26, 1996, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The six-month delay in defendant’s appearance did not prej[214]*214udice plaintiff so as to preclude vacatur of a default caused by defendant’s insurer’s failure to interpose an answer while also failing to disclaim coverage (see, Price v Polisner, 172 AD2d 422; see also, Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242). Meritorious defenses are raised. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 213, 679 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-42-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack