Sessa v. Buena Vida Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sessa v. Buena Vida Corp.

15 A.D.3d 643, 789 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 643 (Sessa v. Buena Vida 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

Sessa v. Buena Vida Corp., 15 A.D.3d 643, 789 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal [644]*644injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated January 23, 2004, as denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its default in appearing or answering and granted the defendant’s cross motion to compel her to accept its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the Supreme Court was proper, given the brevity of the delay, the absence of willfulness, the defendant’s submissions suggesting a meritorious defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits (see Eckna v Kesselman, 11 AD3d 507 [2004]; Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581, 582 [2003]; Albano v Nus Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 280, 281 [1996]). H. Miller, J.E, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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 damages for personal [644]*644injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated January 23, 2004, as denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its default in appearing or answering and granted the defendant’s cross motion to compel her to accept its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the Supreme Court was proper, given the brevity of the delay, the absence of willfulness, the defendant’s submissions suggesting a meritorious defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits (see Eckna v Kesselman, 11 AD3d 507 [2004]; Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581, 582 [2003]; Albano v Nus Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 280, 281 [1996]). H. Miller, J.E, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 643, 789 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sessa-v-buena-vida-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack