From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuchs v. Midali America Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1999
260 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 29, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).


Defendants do not show a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear on two scheduled trial dates. They do not explain why some indication of their scheduling needs could not have been conveyed to the court, if not through their attorney of record, then through covering counsel ( see, Teachers Ins. Annuity Assn. v. Code Beta Group, 204 A.D.2d 193). However, as the damages are unliquidated, defendants are entitled to a hearing thereon, and we modify accordingly ( see, Rokina Opt. Co. v. Camera King, 63 N.Y.2d 728).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.


Summaries of

Fuchs v. Midali America Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 29, 1999
260 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Fuchs v. Midali America Corp.

Case Details

Full title:PAOLA FUCHS et al., Respondents, v. MIDALI AMERICA CORP. et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 29, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 80

Citing Cases

Wolf v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

Therefore, a hearing is proper even though defendant is in default and the court is granting plaintiff…

Youni Gems Corp. v. Bassco Creations Inc.

Defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default at the inquest. Their prior attorney's…