From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krystofic v. Rapisardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1985
112 A.D.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 8, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J., Tanenbaum, J., McCarthy, J.).


Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in finding an excusable default and a meritorious claim on these facts. The delay here was due to a misunderstanding in adjourning appellants' motion for summary judgment and a difficulty in obtaining medical evidence. Public policy favors a determination on the merits ( Stark v. Marine Power Light Co., 99 A.D.2d 753), and the sound discretion of Special Term is to be given some latitude in determining what is an excusable default ( Picotte Realty v. Aragona, 87 A.D.2d 955). Therefore, the order of Special Term is affirmed, insofar as appealed from. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Krystofic v. Rapisardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1985
112 A.D.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Krystofic v. Rapisardi

Case Details

Full title:MARION KRYSTOFIC et al., Respondents, v. CARMELA RAPISARDI et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 8, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Paul v. Weatherwax

Here, the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for his short delay in serving and filing papers in…

Ehmer v. Modernismo Publications, Ltd.

The plaintiffs' time to comply with items 2, 3 and 4 of the appellants' notice for discovery is extended…