Hurtig v. Podmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hurtig v. Podmore

63 A.D.2d 960, 405 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12008

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 1978·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In consolidated actions and proceedings, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington made on August 5, 1976, which, in part, found that the three structures on the appellant’s land may each be legally occupied by one family, as a continuing nonconforming use, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 24, 1978, which denied the appellant’s motion to, in effect, vacate a default judgment of the same court, entered January 6, 1978, and to restore the matters to the trial calendar. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the appellant’s default in appearing for trial. That default was caused by his attorney’s actual engagement in another court and her illness later that afternoon (see Benn v Baltimore & Ohio R. R., Co., 286 App Div 992; Gawel v DeLuca, 263 App Div 838). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions and proceedings, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington made on August 5, 1976, which, in part, found that the three structures on the appellant’s land may each be legally occupied by one family, as a continuing nonconforming use, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 24, 1978, which denied the appellant’s motion to, in effect, vacate a default judgment of the same court, entered January 6, 1978, and to restore the matters to the trial calendar. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the appellant’s default in appearing for trial. That default was caused by his attorney’s actual engagement in another court and her illness later that afternoon (see Benn v Baltimore & Ohio R. R., Co., 286 App Div 992; Gawel v DeLuca, 263 App Div 838). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Hurtig v. Podmore, 63 A.D.2d 960, 405 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

63 A.D.2d 960 (Hurtig v. Podmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related