You are here: / / LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A TWO-WEEK DELAY IN FILING...
,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A TWO-WEEK DELAY IN FILING PAPERS OPPOSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to timely response to summary judgment motions:

We disagree with the motion court that plaintiff failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious cause of action … . We find that the law office failure that resulted in plaintiff’s two-week delay in filing opposition to defendants’ motions was not willful and that a meritorious cause of action as to both incidents has been set forth … . Knight v Acacia Network, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08365. First Dept 11-19-19

 

You might also like
Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law
DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
IN A FALLING OBJECT CASE WHERE INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS ALLEGED, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE OBJECT WAS DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.
Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply
Elements of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE RIGHTS HER SON WAS GIVING UP BY ADMITTING TO THE... DEFENSE MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE BECAUSE...