Sequoia Construction Corp. v. Hunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sequoia Construction Corp. v. Hunt

78 A.D.2d 695, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13218

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 695 (Sequoia Construction Corp. v. Hunt) 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

Sequoia Construction Corp. v. Hunt, 78 A.D.2d 695, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for willful exaggeration of a mechanic’s lien and breach of contract, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 19, 1979, as denied his motion to open his default in answering and extend his time to answer. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Defendant’s time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. After considering a variety of factors including the short delay in serving the answer (for which a proper excuse was offered), the apparently meritorious defense, the complexity of the issues, the fact that defendant also has a related action pending against plaintiff (for which consolidation was requested), and the fact that settlement negotiations were conducted, we believe that the issues should be determined on the merits. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for willful exaggeration of a mechanic’s lien and breach of contract, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 19, 1979, as denied his motion to open his default in answering and extend his time to answer. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Defendant’s time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. After considering a variety of factors including the short delay in serving the answer (for which a proper excuse was offered), the apparently meritorious defense, the complexity of the issues, the fact that defendant also has a related action pending against plaintiff (for which consolidation was requested), and the fact that settlement negotiations were conducted, we believe that the issues should be determined on the merits. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 695, 432 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sequoia-construction-corp-v-hunt-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack