Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-929-605-4013

Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Holder

Document Cited authorities 2 Cited in 31 Precedent Map Related
Decision Date18 July 2006
Docket Number2005-06204.
Citation31 A.D.3d 636,817 N.Y.S.2d 916,2006 NY Slip Op 05784
PartiesIn the Matter of ELRAC, INC., Doing Business as, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Respondent, v. NASHON HOLDER, Appellant. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Proposed Additional Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

31 A.D.3d 636

817 N.Y.S.2d 916

2006 NY Slip Op 05784

In the Matter of ELRAC, INC., Doing Business as, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Respondent, v.NASHON HOLDER, AppellantGEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Proposed AdditionalRespondent.

2005-06204.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

July 18, 2006.

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Nashon Holder appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 6, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate a prior order of the same court dated December 3, 2004, entered upon his default, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion, in effect, to vacate because the appellant's conclusory and unsubstantiated excuse of law office failure did not amount to a reasonable excuse for his failure to oppose the petition (seeCPLR 5015 [a][1];Matter of Hye-Young Chon v Country-Wide Ins. Co.,22 AD3d 849...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Heidari v. First Advance Funding Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 32895(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2007)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 21 d2 Agosto d2 2007
    ...["conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure was insufficient to constitute a justifiable excuse"]; Elrac, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636 (2nd Dept. 2006)["conclusory and unsubstantiated excuse of law office failure did not amount to a reasonable excuse"]. Since defendants fa......
  • Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 d3 Novembro d3 2012
    ...failure are insufficient ( see Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456;Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 636–637, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Denton v. City of Mount Vernon, 30 A.D.3d 600, 601, 817 N.Y.S.2d 140). In addition, in a medical malprac......
  • Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Colucci
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 d3 Abril d3 2016
    ...1286, 944 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; Ogunmoyin v. 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, 85 A.D.3d 991, 992, 925 N.Y.S.2d 844 ; Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 637, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916 ). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the unsubstantiated explanation of th......
  • E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Charles
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 d3 Fevereiro d3 2013
    ...amount to a reasonable excuse” ( White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 44 A.D.3d 651, 651, 843 N.Y.S.2d 168;see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 636–637, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916). Here, the appellants' claim of law office failure was unsubstantiated and, under the circumstances presented......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT