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

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

DecidedJune 5, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 960 (Hurtig v. Podmore) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 960, 405 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurtig-v-podmore-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack