From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pisano v. Tupper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 27, 1991
177 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 27, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Saratoga County (Williams, J.).


Defendants Frederick A. Tupper, Jr. and Frederick A. Tupper, Sr. (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) moved for relief from a default judgment entered against them on the grounds of excusable default due to law office failure and the existence of a meritorious defense. County Court reopened the default finding that the prolonged illness of defendants' attorney, the brevity of the delay, the absence of prejudice to plaintiff and a meritorious defense justified such relief. Plaintiff now appeals.

A motion to be relieved from a default is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and the decision of the court to open a default will not be disturbed in the absence of an improvident exercise of discretion (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Michael William Printery, Inc. v. Qual Krom, 124 A.D.2d 277, 278). We find no abuse of discretion herein. The law favors a resolution of disputes on the merits rather than by default. The motion to vacate the default was appropriately granted by County Court.

Weiss, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Pisano v. Tupper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 27, 1991
177 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Pisano v. Tupper

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY PISANO, Appellant, v. FREDERICK A. TUPPER, JR. et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 27, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 646

Citing Cases

Scielzi v. Gold

Following service of defendant's answer on or about April 4, 1994, defendant received notice that a default…

Pisano v. Tupper

Defendants then moved to vacate the default judgment and for permission to serve an answer. The motion was…