From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Verizon New York v. Case Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

June 16, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered January 23, 2009, which granted defendant's motion for an extension of time to answer and denied plaintiffs cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.


Defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering the complaint ( see CPLR 3012 [d]; Finkelstein v East 65th St. Laundromat, 215 AD2d 178). In addition, although it was not required to do so, defendant demonstrated the existence of meritorious defenses ( see Terrones v Morera, 295 AD2d 254).


Summaries of

Verizon New York v. Case Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Verizon New York v. Case Construction

Case Details

Full title:VERIZON NEW YORK INC., Appellant, v. CASE CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
880 N.Y.S.2d 476

Citing Cases

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. D D Insulation Inc.

Although the latter provision may include a showing of a meritorious defense, § 3012(d) does not specifically…

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. D D Insulation Inc.

Although the latter provision may include a showing of a meritorious defense, § 3012(d) does not specifically…