Seccombe v. Serafina Restaurant Corp.

2 A.D.3d 516, 767 N.Y.S.2d 875
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 516 (Seccombe v. Serafina Restaurant Corp.) 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
Seccombe v. Serafina Restaurant Corp., 2 A.D.3d 516, 767 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate their default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The defendants reasonably relied on the insurer of the defendant Serafina Restaurant Corp. (hereinafter Serafina) to interpose an answer after the defendant Frank Caniglia, the president of Serafina, timely delivered the summons and complaint to his insurance broker, and the carrier failed to disclaim coverage or answer (see Perez v Linshar Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 532, 533 [1999]; Fire Is. Pines v Colonial Dormer Corp., 109 AD2d 815, 816 [1985]; Swidler v WorldWide Volkswagen Corp., 85 AD2d 239 [1982]). In addition, the defendants set forth facts sufficient to establish that they have a meritorious defense (see Clarke v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 297 AD2d 779 [2002]; Mittendorf v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 195 AD2d 449 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to vacate the default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rekhtman v. Clarendon Holding Co., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 6778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Jong Gwon Kim v. Strippoli
2016 NY Slip Op 7926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Yu v. Vantage Management Services, LLC
85 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Munroe v. Manning
43 A.D.3d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Greene v. Mullen
39 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Cooney v. Cambridge Management & Realty Corp.
35 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Breier v. Congregation Zemach David of New Square
30 A.D.3d 363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ramirez v. Rao
23 A.D.3d 447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc.
21 A.D.3d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Thompson v. Steuben Realty Corp.
18 A.D.3d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Juseinoski v. Board of Education
15 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
CAB Associates v. Elsayed
6 Misc. 3d 13 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Robinson v. 1068 Flatbush Realty, Inc.
10 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 516, 767 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seccombe-v-serafina-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-2003.