Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co.

63 A.D.3d 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered January 23, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for an extension of time to answer and denied plaintiffs cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering the complaint (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Finkelstein v East 65th St. Laundromat, 215 AD2d 178 [1995]). In addition, although it was not required to do so, defendant demonstrated the existence of meritorious defenses (see Terrones v Morera, 295 AD2d 254 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered January 23, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for an extension of time to answer and denied plaintiffs cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering the complaint (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Finkelstein v East 65th St. Laundromat, 215 AD2d 178 [1995]). In addition, although it was not required to do so, defendant demonstrated the existence of meritorious defenses (see Terrones v Morera, 295 AD2d 254 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co., 63 A.D.3d 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

63 A.D.3d 521 (Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related