Smith v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.

99 A.D.2d 530, 471 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16744

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 530 (Smith v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc.) 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

Smith v. Waldbaum's Supermarket, Inc., 99 A.D.2d 530, 471 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), entered June 15, 1983, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel acceptance of its answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion denied and defendant’s cross motion granted. The defendant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 10 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Defendant’s delay in serving its answer should be excused. The period of delay, four days, is short, the excuse (the admittedly ongoing settlement negotiations between counsel) is reasonable, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and defendant has tendered an affidavit of a witness attesting to a meritorious defense (see Q. P. I. Rests, v Slevin, 60 NY2d 676; Weissblum v Mostafzafan Foundation, 60 NY2d 637; Eddy v Tops Friendly Markets, 59 NY2d 692; Pazienza v Floral Pet, 98 AD2d 743). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), entered June 15, 1983, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel acceptance of its answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion denied and defendant’s cross motion granted. The defendant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 10 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Defendant’s delay in serving its answer should be excused. The period of delay, four days, is short, the excuse (the admittedly ongoing settlement negotiations between counsel) is reasonable, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and defendant has tendered an affidavit of a witness attesting to a meritorious defense (see Q. P. I. Rests, v Slevin, 60 NY2d 676; Weissblum v Mostafzafan Foundation, 60 NY2d 637; Eddy v Tops Friendly Markets, 59 NY2d 692; Pazienza v Floral Pet, 98 AD2d 743). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 530, 471 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-waldbaums-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack