Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div.
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
- 2026P.F. v. M.B. N.Y. Sup. Queens
- 2026Hernandez-Torres v. RJR Realty Assoc., LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025215 E. 68th St. LP v. Dolch N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025Kirakoe v. Claim Check 345 Sheffield Parking, LLC N.Y. App. Term.
- 2025Monex Can., Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025343 E 173 LLC v. Estrella Civ. Ct. NYC, Bronx Cty.
- 2025U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Fowkes N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.
- 2025SL Group Constr., LLC v. Marotti N.Y. App. Term.
- 2024TAM Med. Supply, Corp. v. Century Surety Co. Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty.
- 2024ZG Palmetto, LLC v. Alongi N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 4 cases
- Orwell Building Corp. v. Bessaha
- Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co.
- Veith Enterprises, Inc. v. Electrical Development & Construction, Inc.
- Goodman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Clara Harcztark, Appellant, v Drive Variety, Inc., et al., Respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated October 10, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion to vacate their default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve and file a late answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to vacate their default in answering and for leave to serve a late answer (see Trimble v SAS Taxi Co. Inc., 8 AD3d 557 [2004]; Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581 [2003]; Veith Enters. v Electrical Dev. & Constr., 292 AD2d 376 [2002]). We disagree with our dissenting colleague that our prior cases should be read to hold that delay by an insurance company may never constitute all or part of a reasonable excuse by an insured for a default. Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits (see Orwell Bldg. Corp. v Bessaha, 5 AD3d 573 [2004]). We find no basis to categorically exclude consideration of a delay by an insurance company in making such a determination. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.