Steinbarth v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinbarth v. Otis Elevator Co.

244 A.D.2d 930, 665 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12293

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 930 (Steinbarth v. Otis Elevator Co.) 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

Steinbarth v. Otis Elevator Co., 244 A.D.2d 930, 665 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a]). The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the impairment of defendant’s former attorney by alcoholism constituted a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Jiminez v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 161 AD2d 497), and defendant demonstrated that it has meritorious defenses to the action (see, Yacone v Ryan Homes, 216 AD2d 963). Finally, defendant has remedied its default in complying with the court’s discovery orders, and there is no indication that plaintiffs were unduly prejudiced by any delay (see, Yacone v Ryan Homes, supra, at 963-964). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.— Vacate Default Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a]). The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the impairment of defendant’s former attorney by alcoholism constituted a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Jiminez v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 161 AD2d 497), and defendant demonstrated that it has meritorious defenses to the action (see, Yacone v Ryan Homes, 216 AD2d 963). Finally, defendant has remedied its default in complying with the court’s discovery orders, and there is no indication that plaintiffs were unduly prejudiced by any delay (see, Yacone v Ryan Homes, supra, at 963-964). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.— Vacate Default Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 930, 665 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbarth-v-otis-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack