From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watt v. Spencer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 2007
36 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 10042N, Index 104359/03.

January 9, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered March 1, 2006, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to vacate his default in answering the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Schwartz, Lichten Bright, P.C., New York (Daniel R. Bright of counsel), for appellant.

Carl Spencer, respondent pro se.

Before: Sullivan J.P., Williams. Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.


In light of the strong policy of the courts in favor of deciding cases on their merits ( see Dokmecian v ABN AMRO N. Am., 304 AD2d 445), the motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in accepting defendant's affidavit showing a potentially meritorious defense and counsel's reasonable excuse for the default ( see Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v Andersen Co., 60 NY2d 693).


Summaries of

Watt v. Spencer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 2007
36 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Watt v. Spencer

Case Details

Full title:ED WATT, as Financial Secretary-Treasurer of Local 100, Transport Workers…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 80
825 N.Y.S.2d 913

Citing Cases

Lancer v. Lizette

Moreover, the court apparently found sufficient merit to the demand for arbitration to schedule a…