Centrillo v. Route 6 & 22 Realty, Inc.

207 A.D.2d 371, 616 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 8, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 371 (Centrillo v. Route 6 & 22 Realty, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Centrillo v. Route 6 & 22 Realty, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 371, 616 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated April 22, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, conditioned upon the payment to the plaintiff of the sum of $2,000 in attorneys fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[372]*372Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the defendant amply demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its default in answering the complaint (see, Price v Polisner, 172 AD2d 422; Fox v Bicanic, 163 AD2d 272; Murphy v D. V. Waste Control Corp., 124 AD2d 573). Furthermore, the existence of a meritorious defense was established through the affidavit of the defendant’s president who had personal knowledge concerning the condition of the parking lot where the plaintiffs injuries allegedly took place (see, David Sanders, P. C. v Sanders, Architects, 140 AD2d 787; cf., Cooper v Badruddin, 192 AD2d 997; Whitbeck v Erin’s Isle, 109 AD2d 1032). We therefore conclude that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment (see, Perellie v Crimson’s Rest., 108 AD2d 903), and note that the court conditioned the vacatur on payment to the plaintiff of a $2,000 penalty (see, Murphy v D. V. Waste Control Corp., supra). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Juseinoski v. Board of Education
15 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Casserley v. County of Westchester
235 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Bray v. Luca
233 A.D.2d 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 A.D.2d 371, 616 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centrillo-v-route-6-22-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1994.