Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale

255 A.D.2d 500, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12652

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 500 (Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale) 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

Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale, 255 A.D.2d 500, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant Pipelining Products, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered November 17, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability upon its default in answering and denied its cross motion, inter alia, to vacate its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the appellant’s default in answering (see, Mondrone v Lakeview Auto Sales & Serv., 170 AD2d 586). It was incumbent upon the appellant to show a reasonable excuse for the one-year delay in serving its answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]). The appellant’s only excuse, that due to an oversight counsel was not retained, is insufficient under the circumstances of this case (see, Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, 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 injury to property, the defendant Pipelining Products, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered November 17, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability upon its default in answering and denied its cross motion, inter alia, to vacate its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the appellant’s default in answering (see, Mondrone v Lakeview Auto Sales & Serv., 170 AD2d 586). It was incumbent upon the appellant to show a reasonable excuse for the one-year delay in serving its answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]). The appellant’s only excuse, that due to an oversight counsel was not retained, is insufficient under the circumstances of this case (see, Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 500, 680 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobel-v-village-of-scarsdale-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack