From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neiman v. Baby Avenue, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 29, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).


Plaintiff rendered legal services to defendants from July 6, 1988 to March 16, 1989. Plaintiff alleged that defendants did not pay legal fees owed and initiated a lawsuit by serving a summons with notice on defendants alleging account stated and breach of contract. The Holtzbergs served a timely Blumberg form notice of appearance pro se, with a demand for a complaint. Baby Avenue, Ltd. appeared with them in contravention of well-established law prohibiting corporations from appearing pro se. After plaintiff timely served a verified complaint, dated October 3, 1989, the Holtzbergs failed to serve an answer within the statutorily required time period.

It was not an abuse of the Supreme Court's discretion to vacate the defendants' default in answering and the corporation's failure to appear, since defendants sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable excuse, an absence of willfulness and potential meritorious defenses to plaintiff's action (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138 ).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Neiman v. Baby Avenue, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Neiman v. Baby Avenue, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN NEIMAN, P.C., Appellant, v. BABY AVENUE, LTD., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 29, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 799

Citing Cases

Monex Can. v. Bank of Am.

Whether these defenses ultimately have merit is a question for a different day. For now, they are sufficient…

CNY Residential LLC v. Turken Found.

The Court has the discretion to permit late service of an answer upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for…