Magliore v. Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Magliore v. Barber

283 A.D.2d 614, 725 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5490

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 614 (Magliore v. Barber) 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

Magliore v. Barber, 283 A.D.2d 614, 725 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated June 7, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which for leave to vacate his default in failing to enter a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon, in effect, vacating their default in appearing or answering, sua sponte, directed them to interpose an answer within 30 days.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed the defendants to interpose an answer within 30 days is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order entered sua sponte, and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to vacate his default (see, La Valle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp., 266 AD2d 28; First Nationwide Bank v Pretel, 240 AD2d 629; Corbin v Wood Pro Installers, 184 AD2d 234; Rosenbaum v Ace Tr. Corp., 112 AD2d 210).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated June 7, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which for leave to vacate his default in failing to enter a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon, in effect, vacating their default in appearing or answering, sua sponte, directed them to interpose an answer within 30 days.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed the defendants to interpose an answer within 30 days is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order entered sua sponte, and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to vacate his default (see, La Valle v Astoria Constr. & Paving Corp., 266 AD2d 28; First Nationwide Bank v Pretel, 240 AD2d 629; Corbin v Wood Pro Installers, 184 AD2d 234; Rosenbaum v Ace Tr. Corp., 112 AD2d 210).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 614, 725 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magliore-v-barber-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack