Tanpinco v. Royal Caribbean International

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tanpinco v. Royal Caribbean International

79 A.D.3d 484, 911 N.Y.S.2d 625

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 484 (Tanpinco v. Royal Caribbean International) 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

Tanpinco v. Royal Caribbean International, 79 A.D.3d 484, 911 N.Y.S.2d 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 16, 2009, which, upon plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against defendants Corporate Travel Services and Corporate Travel Services, Inc., and said defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, directed defendants to serve their answer within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint, i.e., that their insurance carrier failed to forward the complaint to counsel (see Heskel’s W. 38th St. Corp. v Gotham Constr. Co. LLC, 14 AD3d 306, 307 [2005]). The record shows no willful default on defendants’ part and no prejudice to plaintiffs as a result of the delay (see Pagan v Four Thirty Realty LLC, 50 AD3d 265 [2008]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 16, 2009, which, upon plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against defendants Corporate Travel Services and Corporate Travel Services, Inc., and said defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, directed defendants to serve their answer within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint, i.e., that their insurance carrier failed to forward the complaint to counsel (see Heskel’s W. 38th St. Corp. v Gotham Constr. Co. LLC, 14 AD3d 306, 307 [2005]). The record shows no willful default on defendants’ part and no prejudice to plaintiffs as a result of the delay (see Pagan v Four Thirty Realty LLC, 50 AD3d 265 [2008]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 484, 911 N.Y.S.2d 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanpinco-v-royal-caribbean-international-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack