Howard v. Proudlove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Proudlove

269 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 356 (Howard v. Proudlove) 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

Howard v. Proudlove, 269 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Talley Motors, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated February 4, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against it on the issue of liability based on its failure to appear or answer, and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[357]*357To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a judgment based upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer in an action, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Pisacreta v Joseph A. Minniti, P. C., 265 AD2d 540). The appellant failed to do so.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Plorio and Schmidt, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendant Talley Motors, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated February 4, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against it on the issue of liability based on its failure to appear or answer, and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[357]*357To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a judgment based upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer in an action, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Pisacreta v Joseph A. Minniti, P. C., 265 AD2d 540). The appellant failed to do so.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Plorio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-proudlove-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack