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

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 521 (Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 521, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verizon-new-york-inc-v-case-construction-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack