From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 1, 1927
221 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)

Summary

In Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corp. (221 A.D. 717), the court said, at page 718: "There can be no question regarding the power of the court in its discretion and upon terms to open defaults of this nature in the furtherance of justice, both by right of statute (Civ.

Summary of this case from Heiland v. Salm

Opinion

December 1, 1927.

Appeal from Supreme Court of Madison County.

Cregg Brothers Rulison [ E.W. Cregg of counsel], for the appellant.

Coley Kiley [ Edward A. Kiley of counsel], for the respondent.


At the first Trial Term in Madison county after the cause was at issue, the plaintiff having placed the case on the day calendar moved it for trial on the fourth day after the term opened, took a verdict and entered judgment in the absence of defendant's counsel who had not attended the term. The place of business of defendant and the office of its counsel were in New York city. They received no notice except the notice of trial served by mail sixteen days before the term opened.

Their answer set up a substantial defense on the merits. They moved to open the default alleging their unfamiliarity with the condition of calendars in upstate counties, stating that from their experience causes of so recent issue were not reached and disposed of with such dispatch. In brief, their claim is one of inadvertence and excusable neglect. Their moving papers contain an affidavit of merits.

There can be no question regarding the power of the court in its discretion and upon terms to open defaults of this nature in the furtherance of justice, both by right of statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 108) and by the power inherent in it. ( Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325; Hatch v. Central National Bank, 78 id. 487.) It will usually exercise that power as a matter of general policy to permit actions to be tried on their merits by giving each party his fair day in court. ( Allen v. Fink, 211 App. Div. 411, 415; Gideon v. Dwyer, 17 Misc. 233; affd., 7 App. Div. 608.) Such motions will be denied ordinarily only when there has been some persistent wrongful conduct, willfulness or bad faith by a party. ( Rycroft v. Pierce, 150 App. Div. 521; Falvey v. Cornwall Terminal Co., Ltd., 209 id. 448; Tabakin v. Freiman, 217 id. 665.)

Generally the opening of a default where there is some reason shown why the party should have a trial, involves merely the question of the terms to be imposed in granting the order. At Special Term no opinion was written by the learned justice so we are uninformed concerning the reasons that urged him to deny the motion. The record on appeal does not indicate to us a sound reason for withholding the relief sought.

The order should be reversed and the motion to open the default should be granted on payment of the costs and disbursements taxed in the judgment; the judgment heretofore entered to stand as security for any judgment which plaintiff may recover in the action, without costs of this appeal.

The appeal from the judgment should be dismissed, without costs.

COCHRANE, P.J., VAN KIRK, HINMAN, McCANN and WHITMYER, JJ., concur.

Order reversed on the facts, and motion to open default granted on payment of the costs and disbursements taxed in the judgment; the judgment heretofore entered to stand as security for any judgment which plaintiff may recover in the action, without costs of this appeal.


Summaries of

Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 1, 1927
221 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)

In Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corp. (221 A.D. 717), the court said, at page 718: "There can be no question regarding the power of the court in its discretion and upon terms to open defaults of this nature in the furtherance of justice, both by right of statute (Civ.

Summary of this case from Heiland v. Salm

In Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corporation (221 A.D. 717) the court, in discussing the discretionary power of courts to open defaults, observed (at p. 718): "It will usually exercise that power as a matter of general policy to permit actions to be tried on their merits by giving each party his fair day in court.

Summary of this case from Matter of Miller
Case details for

Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MARION H. BALDWIN, Respondent, v. YELLOW TAXI CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1927

Citations

221 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)
225 N.Y.S. 423

Citing Cases

Woodward v. Weekes

March, 1930. Order reversed, on the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal, on the…

Warbett v. Polokoff

"The controlling principles are well settled. As a matter of general policy, disposition of controversies on…