Scott v. Fontana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scott v. Fontana

268 A.D.2d 237, 700 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 237 (Scott v. Fontana) 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

Scott v. Fontana, 268 A.D.2d 237, 700 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about October 5, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Absent any showing of prejudice caused by defendant’s 22-day delay in appearing, and in view of defense counsel’s diligence once in the case, the motion court properly vacated a default apparently caused by defendant’s short delay in forwarding the summons and complaint to the insurer and the insurer’s short delay in forwarding the file to defense counsel (see, Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242; Rosa v 42 Holding Corp., 254 AD2d 213). A meritorious defense is shown. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about October 5, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Absent any showing of prejudice caused by defendant’s 22-day delay in appearing, and in view of defense counsel’s diligence once in the case, the motion court properly vacated a default apparently caused by defendant’s short delay in forwarding the summons and complaint to the insurer and the insurer’s short delay in forwarding the file to defense counsel (see, Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242; Rosa v 42 Holding Corp., 254 AD2d 213). A meritorious defense is shown. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 237, 700 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-fontana-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack