Ortuzar v. Faherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortuzar v. Faherty

53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276

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

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 604 (Ortuzar v. Faherty) 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

Ortuzar v. Faherty, 53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 8, 1976, which denied their motion to (1) vacate a default judgment and (2) restore the case to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by respondent Howard S. Howard (sued herein as Sonny Howard), motion granted, and the action is directed to be restored to its regular position on the Trial Term Calendar, with leave to plaintiffs to move expeditiously to obtain jurisdiction of the infant defendant, Scott Howard, if they be so advised. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to grant plaintiffs a continuance to rectify the error and to deny their motion to be relieved of the default (see Springer v Marangio, 38 AD2d 852; Moran [605]*605v Rynar, 39 AD2d 718). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 8, 1976, which denied their motion to (1) vacate a default judgment and (2) restore the case to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by respondent Howard S. Howard (sued herein as Sonny Howard), motion granted, and the action is directed to be restored to its regular position on the Trial Term Calendar, with leave to plaintiffs to move expeditiously to obtain jurisdiction of the infant defendant, Scott Howard, if they be so advised. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to grant plaintiffs a continuance to rectify the error and to deny their motion to be relieved of the default (see Springer v Marangio, 38 AD2d 852; Moran [605]*605v Rynar, 39 AD2d 718). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 604, 383 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortuzar-v-faherty-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack