Seybold v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seybold v. Hertz Corp.

31 A.D.2d 641, 295 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 641 (Seybold v. Hertz 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

Seybold v. Hertz Corp., 31 A.D.2d 641, 295 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 26, 1967, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents against appellant, and motion denied. Appellant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion appellant’s opposing affidavits present an arguably meritorious, defense to respondents’ causes of action and an excuse which shows that appellant’s failure to serve an answer was not willful. In these circumstances we deem the granting of plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment an improvident exercise of discretion. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 26, 1967, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents against appellant, and motion denied. Appellant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion appellant’s opposing affidavits present an arguably meritorious, defense to respondents’ causes of action and an excuse which shows that appellant’s failure to serve an answer was not willful. In these circumstances we deem the granting of plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment an improvident exercise of discretion. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 641, 295 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seybold-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1968.