Underwood v. Grey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Underwood v. Grey

187 A.D.2d 390, 589 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 390 (Underwood v. Grey) 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

Underwood v. Grey, 187 A.D.2d 390, 589 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), dated October 7, 1991, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment unless defendants served an answer by October 10, 1991, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion to extend defendants’ time to answer the complaint, since their refusal to answer was based upon a reasonable misapprehension that plaintiff was required to seek leave to amend her original complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the court could conclude that defendants’ misapprehension constituted a reasonable excuse for the default (CPLR 3012 [d]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), dated October 7, 1991, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment unless defendants served an answer by October 10, 1991, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion to extend defendants’ time to answer the complaint, since their refusal to answer was based upon a reasonable misapprehension that plaintiff was required to seek leave to amend her original complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the court could conclude that defendants’ misapprehension constituted a reasonable excuse for the default (CPLR 3012 [d]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 390, 589 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-grey-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack