From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spencer v. Sanko Holding USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

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


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

As a general rule, a default will be vacated and a late answer will be permitted and deemed timely served when a defendant can show that there is some merit to his defense and that there is some reasonable excuse for the delay ( see, Levy v. Cusummano, 204 A.D.2d 519; McFadden v. Battaglia, 159 A.D.2d 700). The defendant failed to satisfy either requirement in this case. Indeed, the affirmation prepared by the defendant's attorney which was submitted in support of its motion did not even assert a defense. Further, the vague, conclusory assertions made "upon information and belief" which were set forth in the affirmation failed to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default.

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


Summaries of

Spencer v. Sanko Holding USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Spencer v. Sanko Holding USA, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RUTH SPENCER, Appellant, v. SANKO HOLDING USA, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Widelec v. Silberstein

His vehicle struck a parked vehicle, which then struck Widelec's vehicle parked in front of it. According to…

Widelec v. Silberstein

According to this version of the accident, these defendants may bear little, if any, responsibility for…