Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentGesmer, J.
The record before us supports a finding that defendants Carmelo and Vivian Rosabianca should have been granted permission to interpose a late answer, upon consideration of every applicable factor. Most notably, the motion court failed to consider “the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits,” which we have held normally weighs in favor of granting such motions (Artcorp Inc. v Citirich Realty Corp., 140 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2016]). That is particularly appropriate here, where the movants demonstrated, although “not essential” on this prejudgment request to file a late…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hallock v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Ford v. Unity HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Standard Funding Corp. v. LewittNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Collision Plan Unlimited, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Jones v. 414 Equities LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.