Burgos v. ALLCITY INSURANCE COMPANY
| Decision Date | 18 May 2000 |
| Citation | 707 N.Y.S.2d 438,272 A.D.2d 195 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | JUAN BURGOS, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ALLCITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants. |
We find that the motion court's exercise of discretion, in denying defendants' motion to vacate, was improvident. Defendant insurers established that their default, in this Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (2) action, was excusable, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), by sufficiently demonstrating a reasonable excuse, a lack of prejudice to plaintiff, the timeliness of the motion to vacate, and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Frenchy's Bar & Grill v United Intl. Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 177). Their assertion of law office failure provided a reasonable excuse for the default, since they showed that their failure to forward the summons and complaint to their attorney and his subsequent default on the motion were not willful (see, CPLR 2005; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242; see also, Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353). They asserted a meritorious defense by offering proof that the judgment exceeded the limits of the insurance policy at issue (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [2]; see also, D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659; Holmes v Allstate Ins. Co., 33 AD2d 96). They contend that the only prejudice that plaintiff might suffer would result from this action having to be brought pursuant to section 3420 (a) (2); if they prevail on their allegation that the insurance policy has a $10,000 limit, the statute requires that plaintiff's recovery in this action be limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferreira v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...Co., 103 A.D.3d 775, 775–776, 962 N.Y.S.2d 171;Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 38 A.D.3d 522, 523, 832 N.Y.S.2d 587;Burgos v. Allcity Ins. Co., 272 A.D.2d 195, 195, 707 N.Y.S.2d 438). However, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the sum of $100,000, which accrued since the entry of the und......
-
Bennion v. Allstate Ins.
..."for the amount of such judgment not exceeding the amount of the applicable limit of coverage under such policy" (see also, Burgos v Allcity Ins. Co., 272 A.D.2d 195). Thus, the damages sought in the first cause of action may not exceed the $25,000 policy limit (see, Atlas Feather Corp. v P......
-
Teich v. Plan'd Parenthood of Westchester & Rockland Cos.
...after service of process. As the delay was neither protracted nor prejudicial, the default was properly vacated (see, Burgos v Allcity Ins. Co., 272 A.D.2d 195; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 A.D.2d 242; see also, Solowij v Otis Elev., 260 A.D.2d 226). The affidavit of defendants' expert is adeq......
- People v. Pendergrass