Schupak, Rosenfeld & Fischbein v. Campanelli Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schupak, Rosenfeld & Fischbein v. Campanelli Industries, Inc.

51 A.D.2d 699, 380 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11142

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1975, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order of preclusion on condition that plaintiffs serve a proper bill of particulars and pay the defendant the sum of $100 plus $40 motion costs and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The order of preclusion which Special Term vacated was originally obtained on default and within a very short time period after joinder of issue. There has been no showing of prejudice to the defendants. While we do not in any way condone the laxity of the plaintiffs (themselves attorneys), nonetheless it is the strong policy of our courts to permit actions to be decided on the merits (Dahlem v Universal School Bus Leasing, 35 AD2d 992). Under the circumstances, we find that Special Term providently exercised its discretion in [700]*700vacating the default. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1975, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an order of preclusion on condition that plaintiffs serve a proper bill of particulars and pay the defendant the sum of $100 plus $40 motion costs and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The order of preclusion which Special Term vacated was originally obtained on default and within a very short time period after joinder of issue. There has been no showing of prejudice to the defendants. While we do not in any way condone the laxity of the plaintiffs (themselves attorneys), nonetheless it is the strong policy of our courts to permit actions to be decided on the merits (Dahlem v Universal School Bus Leasing, 35 AD2d 992). Under the circumstances, we find that Special Term providently exercised its discretion in [700]*700vacating the default. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

Schupak, Rosenfeld & Fischbein v. Campanelli Industries, Inc., 51 A.D.2d 699, 380 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 699 (Schupak, Rosenfeld & Fischbein v. Campanelli Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related