Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2010Bryant v. New York City Housing Authority N.Y. App. Div.
- 2008Keyland Mechanical Corp. v. 529 Empire Realty Corp. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2007Watt v. Spencer N.Y. App. Div.
- 2005Matter of D.M.S. v. C.P. N.Y. Fam. Ct., Nassau Cty.
- 2005Arroyo v. Feggoudakis N.Y. App. Div.
- 2004Beizer v. Funk N.Y. App. Div.
- 2003Puija v. Dintino N.Y. App. Div.
- 2003Ananda Capital Partners, Inc. v. Stav Electrical Systems (1994) Ltd. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2003Westchester Medical Center v. ELRAC, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2003O'Leary v. Noutsis N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellant, v Arthur Andersen & Co., Respondent.
Attorneys
- APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
- William Hart, Robert Beau Leonard, Steven Gutman and Jan P. Ryan for appellant.
- Edward J. Ross for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Whether Special Term’s vacatur of defendant’s default in answering was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law is a question of law reviewable by certified question (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 598). The appeal is, therefore, properly before us. But whether the matter be considered under the standard established by chapter 318 of the Laws of 1983, which became law during the pendency of this appeal, or that applicable prior to that enactment, there must be an affirmance.
Required are a reasonable excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merits. Sufficiency of the affidavit is, however, an issue “ordinarily be left to the discretion of the lower courts” (Barasch v Micucci, supra, at p 599). Neither Special Term’s conclusion that “Andersen has met the requirement of establishing a meritorious defense * * * by a person with sufficient knowledge of [the] facts,” nor its holding that the course of prior dealings between the parties and the pendency of related civil and criminal litigation demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering can be said on the record before us to have been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed, etc.