Washington v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington v. Williams

151 A.D.2d 1046, 544 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8469

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 1046 (Washington v. Williams) 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

Washington v. Williams, 151 A.D.2d 1046, 544 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate his default (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Defendant’s affidavit provided a justifiable excuse for his failure to appear for trial and presented a meritorious defense. Further defendant, who was acting pro se, timely answered the complaint and returned from Florida to appear for an examination before trial, thus showing his intent to defend this claim. Given these circumstances, defendant’s cross motion to vacate the default judgment is granted and plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment is denied. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.— Sheriff’s sale.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Law-ton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate his default (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Defendant’s affidavit provided a justifiable excuse for his failure to appear for trial and presented a meritorious defense. Further defendant, who was acting pro se, timely answered the complaint and returned from Florida to appear for an examination before trial, thus showing his intent to defend this claim. Given these circumstances, defendant’s cross motion to vacate the default judgment is granted and plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment is denied. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.— Sheriff’s sale.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Law-ton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 1046, 544 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-williams-nyappdiv-1989.