Dinstber v. Fludd

2 A.D.3d 670, 768 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13854
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 670 (Dinstber v. Fludd) 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
Dinstber v. Fludd, 2 A.D.3d 670, 768 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 7, 2003, which granted the motion of the plaintiff George C. Dinstber III for leave to enter a default judgment, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated April 8, 2003, as, upon granting [671]*671their motion for reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 8, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 8, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based upon the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 AD2d 508 [1998]). The defendants in this case failed to satisfy either requirement. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

We further find that, upon reargument, the defendants improperly raised a new issue (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roldan
80 A.D.3d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Blaut v. Berkovits
77 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp.
73 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kouzios v. Dery
57 A.D.3d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Baldwin v. Mateogarcia
57 A.D.3d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Faltings v. Faltings
35 A.D.3d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Platinum RX, LLC v. Pose
31 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Thompson v. Steuben Realty Corp.
18 A.D.3d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Labarca v. Rauf
14 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Freulich-Woodruff v. B.A. Auto Repair, Inc.
14 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 670, 768 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinstber-v-fludd-nyappdiv-2003.