Lawn v. Gigliotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawn v. Gigliotti

58 A.D.3d 697, 870 N.Y.S.2d 794

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 697 (Lawn v. Gigliotti) 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

Lawn v. Gigliotti, 58 A.D.3d 697, 870 N.Y.S.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and false imprisonment, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 18, 2007, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered June 20, 2007, upon her defaults in appearing at a compliance conference, at trial, and at an inquest on damages, in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $55,355.50.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the judgment entered June 20, 2007 is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the default judgment. Under the peculiar circumstances of this action, the defendant presented both reasonable excuses for her defaults in appearing (see Matter of Zrake v New York City Dept. of Educ., 17 AD3d 603, 603-604 [2005]; Beneficial Fin. Co. of N.Y. v Kramer, 48 AD2d 822 [1975]) and a meritorious defense to the action (see generally Levy v Grandone, 14 AD3d 660, 661 [2005]; Kandekore v Town of Greenburgh, 243 AD2d 610 [1997]; People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, 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 false imprisonment, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated October 18, 2007, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered June 20, 2007, upon her defaults in appearing at a compliance conference, at trial, and at an inquest on damages, in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $55,355.50.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the judgment entered June 20, 2007 is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the default judgment. Under the peculiar circumstances of this action, the defendant presented both reasonable excuses for her defaults in appearing (see Matter of Zrake v New York City Dept. of Educ., 17 AD3d 603, 603-604 [2005]; Beneficial Fin. Co. of N.Y. v Kramer, 48 AD2d 822 [1975]) and a meritorious defense to the action (see generally Levy v Grandone, 14 AD3d 660, 661 [2005]; Kandekore v Town of Greenburgh, 243 AD2d 610 [1997]; People v Bero, 139 AD2d 581, 584 [1988]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 697, 870 N.Y.S.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawn-v-gigliotti-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack