Legal Opinion
Whittemore v. Yeo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 9, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in finding that defendants’ excuse for their more than five-month delay in answering was not reasonable (see Cirillo v Macy’s, Inc., 61 AD3d 538, 540 [1st Dept 2009]). Defendant Edwin Yeo’s claim that other business commitments prevented him from engaging counsel to respond is inadequate (see e.g. Flannery v Stewart, 22 AD2d 786 [1st Dept 1964]), particularly in view of the undisputed fact that his present counsel was aware of the complaint in mid-April 2010, less than one month after the unchallenged service of process on all of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- New Media Holding Co. v. KagalovskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Cirillo v. Macy's, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Lisa Marie v. AltshulerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- American International Insurance v. MJM Quality Construction, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Pieretti v. Flair DéArt Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson-Roberts v. Ira Judelson Bail BondsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- M&E 73-75 LLC v. 57 Fusion LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Whittemore v. YeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Carmody v. 208-210 East 31st Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Whittemore v. YeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014