Mootoo v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mootoo v. Ruiz

286 A.D.2d 321, 728 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7885

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

DecidedAugust 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 321 (Mootoo v. Ruiz) 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

Mootoo v. Ruiz, 286 A.D.2d 321, 728 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 6, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 24, 1999, granting their motion to enter a judgment of default against the defendant upon his failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated May 24, 2000, is reinstated.

A defendant moving to vacate an order entered upon his or her default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138; Domenikos v Miranda, 255 AD2d 481; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). In this case, the defendant’s mo[322]*322tion should, have been denied since he did not demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action (see, Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269; Pumarejo-Garcia v McDonough, 242 AD2d 374; DiPaola v Scherpich, 239 AD2d 459). 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated December 6, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated May 24, 1999, granting their motion to enter a judgment of default against the defendant upon his failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated May 24, 2000, is reinstated.

A defendant moving to vacate an order entered upon his or her default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138; Domenikos v Miranda, 255 AD2d 481; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). In this case, the defendant’s mo[322]*322tion should, have been denied since he did not demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action (see, Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269; Pumarejo-Garcia v McDonough, 242 AD2d 374; DiPaola v Scherpich, 239 AD2d 459). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 321, 728 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mootoo-v-ruiz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack