From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Unger v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 9, 2000

March 23, 2000

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated August 18, 1999, which granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer.

Law Offices of Isaac Anolic, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Anthony M. Bramante, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents' motion which was to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer. The respondents proffered a sufficient excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint and established the existence of a meritorious defense (cf.,Kennedy v. Cassmon Realty Co., 139 A.D.2d 629 ; Stolpiec v. Wiener, 100 A.D.2d 931 ).

RITTER, J.P., SULLIVAN, S. MILLER, LUCIANO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Unger v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Unger v. McIntosh

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD UNGER, appellant, v. WALLACE McINTOSH, et al., respondents, et…

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

Date published: Mar 23, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 885