Torres v. Houses "R" Us, Inc.

182 A.D.2d 684, 582 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 684 (Torres v. Houses "R" Us, 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
Torres v. Houses "R" Us, Inc., 182 A.D.2d 684, 582 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated May 31, 1990, as, upon renewal, granted the defendant’s motion to vacate its default in answering.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as an exercise of discretion, with costs, and the defendant’s motion is denied.

In moving to vacate the default judgment entered against it, the defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving an answer (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Peters v Pickard, 143 AD2d 81). The complaint was served in April 1988 and in July 1988, when the defendant had not yet served an answer, the plaintiff offered to extend its time to answer for 20 days. In September 1988 the defendant’s insurance carrier sought a further extension of time in which to answer the complaint. By letter dated September 7, 1988, the plaintiff [685]*685agreed to an extension of 15 days from that date but warned that an answer served after that date would be rejected. The defendant contends that it served an answer in November 1988; however, the plaintiff asserts that the answer was not served until January 1989 after he had already moved for an inquest. Even assuming that the defendant served an answer in November 1988, no satisfactory excuse was offered for its delay of seven months, including the delay in complying with the September 1988 stipulation. Consequently, we find that it was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to vacate the defendant’s default (see, e.g., Trapani v Imlug & Seven Corp., 140 AD2d 690; Peters v Pickard, supra; Montalvo v Nel Taxi Corp., 114 AD2d 494). Balletta, J. R, O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kristeel Construction, Inc. v. Kulka Construction Corp.
31 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Fekete v. Camp Skwere
16 A.D.3d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Robinson v. 1068 Flatbush Realty, Inc.
10 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Brown v. Baghdady
226 A.D.2d 1137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hokayem v. Leland
226 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Kyriacopoulos v. Mendon Leasing Corp.
216 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Cipriano v. Hank
197 A.D.2d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, Inc.
195 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D.2d 684, 582 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-houses-r-us-inc-nyappdiv-1992.