From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holiday Investors Corp. v. M. Breger Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 12, 1985
112 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

August 12, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).


Order entered January 14, 1985, reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, order entered December 7, 1984, vacated, and defendant's motion granted in its entirety. The time for defendant to serve its answer to the complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

We find that a meritorious defense has been set forth in the proposed answer, and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the default in answering the complaint was attributable to law office failure. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown any prejudice which would result from vacatur of the default. Accordingly, defendant should be permitted to defend this action on the merits.

Additionally, the second lis pendens filed against the subject property should be canceled. A prior notice of pendency regarding the same property and contract of sale was canceled due to improper service of process. Successive filings of notices of pendency under such circumstances are improper, and may not be permitted to stand ( see, Israelson v. Bradley, 308 N.Y. 511). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Holiday Investors Corp. v. M. Breger Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 12, 1985
112 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Holiday Investors Corp. v. M. Breger Co.

Case Details

Full title:HOLIDAY INVESTORS CORP., Respondent, v. M. BREGER CO., INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 12, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Weiner v. MKVII-Westchester, LLC

The circumstance that the defendants failed to argue this dispositive point of law before us does not prevent…

Vincent v. Seaman

Defendant now appeals. On appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting plaintiff to…