Stern v. Warren George, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Warren George, Inc.

82 A.D.3d 873, 918 N.Y.2d 355

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 873 (Stern v. Warren George, 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

Stern v. Warren George, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 873, 918 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 317; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142-143 [1986]; Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725, 728 [1983]; Reyes v DCH Mgt., Inc., 56 AD3d 644 [2008]; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in extending the one-year limitation period set forth in CPLR 317 in light of the potentially meritorious defense asserted by the respondent, the short delay after the limitation period expired in moving to vacate the judgment, and the public policy of determining actions on the merits (see CPLR 2004; Girardo v 99-27 Realty, LLC, 62 AD3d 659, 660 [2009]; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 629-630 [1994]; Allen v Preston, 123 AD2d 303, 303-304 [1986]; Levine v Berlin, 46 AD2d 902, 903 [1974]). Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 317; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142-143 [1986]; Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725, 728 [1983]; Reyes v DCH Mgt., Inc., 56 AD3d 644 [2008]; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454 [2006]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in extending the one-year limitation period set forth in CPLR 317 in light of the potentially meritorious defense asserted by the respondent, the short delay after the limitation period expired in moving to vacate the judgment, and the public policy of determining actions on the merits (see CPLR 2004; Girardo v 99-27 Realty, LLC, 62 AD3d 659, 660 [2009]; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 629-630 [1994]; Allen v Preston, 123 AD2d 303, 303-304 [1986]; Levine v Berlin, 46 AD2d 902, 903 [1974]). Mastro, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 873, 918 N.Y.2d 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-warren-george-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack