From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McFadden v. Battaglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 1990
159 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 26, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a general rule, a default will be vacated and a late answer will be permitted and deemed timely served where a defendant can show that there is some merit to his defense and that there is some reasonable excuse for the delay in serving an answer (Matter of State of New York v Wiley, 117 A.D.2d 856; Maze v Di Bartolo, 97 A.D.2d 815). Here, the defendant has not met this burden. Not only has he failed to show that he has a meritorious defense, but he has also failed to offer any explanation for his default. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McFadden v. Battaglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 1990
159 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

McFadden v. Battaglia

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. McFADDEN et al., Respondents, v. RICHARD BATTAGLIA, Appellant…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 189

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…