From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Limco Mfg. Corp. v. Mattiace Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1979
67 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

February 13, 1979


In an action to declare plaintiff the owner of certain realty, to recover possession of said property, and for damages, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 7, 1978, which granted defendant's motion to vacate its default. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that defendant's attorney personally pay $250 to plaintiff's counsel within 20 days after service upon defendant of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof; in the event such condition is not complied with, then order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In the absence of any proof that defendant abandoned the action and in the absence of any showing of prejudice to plaintiff, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to vacate its default. However, since the record indicates that defendant's default was caused in some measure by its attorney's neglect, it is appropriate to invoke the holding of Moran v. Rynar ( 39 A.D.2d 718, 719) and "save the action for the client, while imposing upon the attorney, personally, a penalty for his neglect". Mollen, P.J., Suozzi, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Limco Mfg. Corp. v. Mattiace Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 1979
67 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Limco Mfg. Corp. v. Mattiace Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LIMCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATTIACE INDUSTRIES, INC.…

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

Date published: Feb 13, 1979

Citations

67 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Rooney Pace, Inc. v. Braverman

On this record we conclude that Special Term properly determined that the defendant's default was excusable…

Forstman v. Arluck

However, in view of the sequence of events, the inclusion in the answer of the affirmative defense of lack of…