From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. Delmar Recycling Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 1997
244 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 10, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest on damages.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' cross motion. It was incumbent upon the defendants to present a reasonable cause for the more than four-month delay in serving their answer ( see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]; Pumarejo-Garcia v. McDonough, 242 A.D.2d 374). The only excuse offered was that "the file which was opened for this claim was misplaced and could not be located". That excuse is insufficient under the circumstances of this case ( see, Martyn v. Jones, 166 A.D.2d 508; Peters v. Pickard, 143 A.D.2d 81).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ortiz v. Delmar Recycling Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 1997
244 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Ortiz v. Delmar Recycling Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ORLANDO ORTIZ, Appellant, v. DELMAR RECYCLING CORP. et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 551

Citing Cases

Vuecom, Inc. v. Century 21 Rand [2d Dept 1999

In the instant case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to…

Vuecom, Inc. v. Century 21 Rand

In the instant case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to…