From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deepdale Gardens Third Corporation v. Bechky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 1984
104 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 9, 1984

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


Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion denied, and judgment dated November 1, 1983 reinstated.

In the order appealed from, Special Term erred in deeming defendant's unverified answer sufficient to answer plaintiff's complaint. We take cognizance of the court's discretionary authority to excuse lack of verification where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (CPLR 2001, 3026). Its exercise, however, is not appropriate in the instant case since service of a verified answer was a condition of a prior order of Special Term vacating defendant's default in appearing and answering (cf. Greff v Havens, 75 N.Y.S.2d 387; General Exch. Ins. Corp. v Stern, 25 N.Y.S.2d 266). Titone, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Deepdale Gardens Third Corporation v. Bechky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 9, 1984
104 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Deepdale Gardens Third Corporation v. Bechky

Case Details

Full title:DEEPDALE GARDENS THIRD CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ROSE BECHKY, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 9, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Yancey v. Hernandez-Pinero

Any objection to the defect in the petition, therefore, was waived by respondents' failure to give notice…

Thomas v. Eugene

Here, this court cannot make such a direction because of the extreme time constraints of Election Law…