TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henniger v. L.B.X. Excavating, Inc.

Bruce Henniger v. L.B.X. Excavating, Inc., and Rick's Fence

Henniger v. L.B.X. Excavating, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 917 (1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 28, 1991
Citations
176 A.D.2d 917575 N.Y.S.2d 5321991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14125

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the defendant L.B.X. Excavating Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), entered February 1, 1990, as denied its motion to be relieved of its default in answering, and to vacate so much of an order of the same court, dated August 4, 1989, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter default judgment against it.

Ordered that the order entered February 1, 1990, is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant, payable by the plaintiff, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and new determination in accordance herewith.

*918 Upon a review of the record, we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether Peter Belli, the person designated to receive notice of the action, actually received the notice that certified mail was waiting for him at the post office. Consequently, the Supreme Court should not have decided the motion without a hearing (see, Rifenburg v Liffiton Homes, 107 AD2d 1015 ). Given the Secretary of State’s certification of mailing, the appellant will be faced with overcoming a presumption of receipt (see, Matter of Rosa v Board of Examiners, 143 AD2d 351 ; Vita v Heller, 97 AD2d 464 ), and if it is unsuccessful in doing so its default should not be vacated (Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 ; Rifenburg v Liffiton Homes, supra). The Supreme Court did not reach the issue of whether a meritorious defense had been demonstrated. We express no opinion thereon, and we leave that determination to the hearing court (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693 ). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Copertino, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 11996: 12014: 12015: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Halali v. Gabbay223 A.D.2d 623 (1996)
  2. Drillman v. Marsam Realty 13th Avenue, LLC129 A.D.3d 903 (2015)
  3. Bennett v. Patel Catskills, LLC120 A.D.3d 458 (2014)
  4. People v. Smith191 A.D.2d 598 (1993)

Most recent

  1. Drillman v. Marsam Realty 13th Avenue, LLC129 A.D.3d 903 (2015)
  2. Bennett v. Patel Catskills, LLC120 A.D.3d 458 (2014)
  3. Halali v. Gabbay223 A.D.2d 623 (1996)
  4. People v. Smith191 A.D.2d 598 (1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Rifenburg v. Liffiton Homes, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 1015 (1985) 14
Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co., 492 N.E.2d 116 (N.Y. 1986) 596
FID. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 455 N.E.2d 1259 (N.Y. 1983) 102
Vita v. Heller, 97 A.D.2d 464 (1983) 26
Rosa v. Bd. of Examiners of N.Y., 143 A.D.2d 351 (1988) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list