Masotto v. Bravata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Masotto v. Bravata

244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 390 (Masotto v. Bravata) 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

Masotto v. Bravata, 244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 21, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 21, 1996, which, upon the defendant’s default in opposing the motion, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the order dated May 21, 1996, is reinstated.

“[I]t is well settled that to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default the movant must demonstrate both a valid excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action” (Medric Constr. v J.W. Mays, Inc., 230 AD2d 832, 833). The defendant offered no explanation for his failure to oppose the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, his motion, inter alia, to vacate the order granting the plaintiffs motion should have been denied. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 21, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 21, 1996, which, upon the defendant’s default in opposing the motion, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the order dated May 21, 1996, is reinstated.

“[I]t is well settled that to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default the movant must demonstrate both a valid excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action” (Medric Constr. v J.W. Mays, Inc., 230 AD2d 832, 833). The defendant offered no explanation for his failure to oppose the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, his motion, inter alia, to vacate the order granting the plaintiffs motion should have been denied. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masotto-v-bravata-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack