From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the appellant's default in answering ( see, Mondrone v. Lakeview Auto Sales Serv., 170 A.D.2d 586). It was incumbent upon the appellant to show a reasonable excuse for the one-year delay in serving its answer ( see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]). The appellant's only excuse, that due to an oversight counsel was not retained, is insufficient under the circumstances of this case ( see, Martyn v. Jones, 166 A.D.2d 508).

Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Sobel v. Village of Scarsdale

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SOBEL et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE, Defendant, and…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 173

Citing Cases

Vuecom, Inc. v. Century 21 Rand [2d Dept 1999

In the instant case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to…

Vuecom, Inc. v. Century 21 Rand

In the instant case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to…