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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2000·Published

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.

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

269 A.D.2d 356 (Howard v. Proudlove) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related