From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgese v. Laro Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1998
251 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 1, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of default which had been entered against it upon its failure to appear or timely answer the complaint. The defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, a meritorious defense, and a lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. There is no evidence of any willful delay by the defendant and public policy favors resolving the matter on the merits (see, Albano v. Nus Holding Corp., 233 A.D.2d 280; I.J. Handa, P. C. v. Imperato, 159 A.D.2d 484; Kahn v. Stamp, 52 A.D.2d 748, 749).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Morgese v. Laro Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1998
251 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Morgese v. Laro Maintenance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LINDA MORGESE, Appellant, v. LARO MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 1020

Citing Cases

Poincy v. White Bus Company, Inc.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the…

Perez v. Cejust Management

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the…