From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayville v. Wal-Mart Stores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Vacate Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and judgment vacated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant to vacate a $175,000 default judgment entered against it in plaintiff's action to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of a criminal act in defendant's store. Defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its default in appearing in the action and a meritorious defense to the complaint ( see, Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141; Yacone v. Ryan Homes, 216 A.D.2d 963; Bernardo v. US Air Group, 175 A.D.2d 642; Price v. Polisner, 172 A.D.2d 422, 422-423). Given the brief overall delay, the promptness with which defendant moved to vacate the judgment, the lack of any intention on defendant's part to abandon the action, plaintiff's failure to demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the delay, and the preference for resolving disputes on the merits, we conclude that defendant's default in appearing must be excused ( see, Cerrone v. Fasulo, 245 A.D.2d 793, 794; Dwyer v. West Bradford Corp., 188 A.D.2d 813, 815; Zablocki v. Straley, 173 A.D.2d 1015, 1016).


Summaries of

Mayville v. Wal-Mart Stores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Mayville v. Wal-Mart Stores

Case Details

Full title:AMELIA MAYVILLE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 328

Citing Cases

Steiner v. University of Rochester

There is likewise no merit to the claim for prima facie tort. Defendants established that they did not act…

MASSACHUSETTS ASSET FINANCING v. DI LAURA

We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of defendants seeking to vacate the…