Dodson v. Zarnoch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dodson v. Zarnoch

239 A.D.2d 383, 658 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 383 (Dodson v. Zarnoch) 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

Dodson v. Zarnoch, 239 A.D.2d 383, 658 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered May 14, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion to (1) vacate two orders of the same court, dated January 17, 1995, and May 12, 1995, respectively, which (a) granted the plaintiff’s ex parte motions for entry of judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendants’ alleged defaults in timely answering the complaint and (b) directed the holding of inquests, and (2) deem the answer timely served nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to vacate the orders entered upon their default in timely answering the complaint. The defendants established the existence of "a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the delay or default” (Korea Exch. Bank v Attilio, 186 AD2d 634; Vieyra v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered May 14, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion to (1) vacate two orders of the same court, dated January 17, 1995, and May 12, 1995, respectively, which (a) granted the plaintiff’s ex parte motions for entry of judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendants’ alleged defaults in timely answering the complaint and (b) directed the holding of inquests, and (2) deem the answer timely served nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to vacate the orders entered upon their default in timely answering the complaint. The defendants established the existence of "a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the delay or default” (Korea Exch. Bank v Attilio, 186 AD2d 634; Vieyra v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 383, 658 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodson-v-zarnoch-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack