Unger v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Unger v. McIntosh

270 A.D.2d 410, 704 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 410 (Unger v. McIntosh) 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

Unger v. McIntosh, 270 A.D.2d 410, 704 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action [411]*411to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated August 18, 1999, which granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer. The respondents proffered a sufficient excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint and established the existence of a meritorious defense (cf., Kennedy v Cassmon Realty Co., 139 AD2d 629; Stolpiec v Wiener, 100 AD2d 931). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action [411]*411to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated August 18, 1999, which granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer. The respondents proffered a sufficient excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint and established the existence of a meritorious defense (cf., Kennedy v Cassmon Realty Co., 139 AD2d 629; Stolpiec v Wiener, 100 AD2d 931). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 410, 704 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unger-v-mcintosh-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack