Mims v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mims v. Perez

79 A.D.3d 1106, 912 N.Y.S.2d 913

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 28, 2010·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 7, 2010, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (3) to vacate a judgment of the same court dated October 27, 2009, which, upon his default in answering the complaint and after an inquest on damages, was in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $100,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore, was not entitled to vacatur of the judgment entered upon his default in answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) (see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735 [2010]; Scheu v Fan Ru Tseng, 72 AD3d 930 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 7, 2010, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (3) to vacate a judgment of the same court dated October 27, 2009, which, upon his default in answering the complaint and after an inquest on damages, was in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $100,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore, was not entitled to vacatur of the judgment entered upon his default in answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) (see Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735 [2010]; Scheu v Fan Ru Tseng, 72 AD3d 930 [2010]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.

Mims v. Perez, 79 A.D.3d 1106, 912 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 1106 (Mims v. Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related