STEINBARTH v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

William A. STEINBARTH and Bernice Steinbarth, Appellants, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Respondent.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY,Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Robert FREUDENHEIM, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: November 19, 1997

Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, WISNER, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

Richard S. Binko, Buffalo, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Hurwitz and Fine, P.C. (Harry Mooney, of counsel), Buffalo, for Defendant-Respondent. William, Stevens, McCarville (Gerald J. Whalen), Buffalo, for Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion to vacate the default (see, CPLR 5015[a] ). The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the impairment of defendant's former attorney by alcoholism constituted a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Jiminez v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 161 A.D.2d 497, 555 N.Y.S.2d 765), and defendant demonstrated that it has meritorious defenses to the action (see, Yacone v. Ryan Homes, 216 A.D.2d 963, 629 N.Y.S.2d 159). Finally, defendant has remedied its default in complying with the court's discovery orders, and there is no indication that plaintiffs were unduly prejudiced by any delay (see, Yacone v. Ryan Homes, supra, at 963-964, 629 N.Y.S.2d 159).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network